MG's panel-based quiz game thread thing #1... GAME THREAD!

[Jason]

Right, it's the moment of truth - the four gladiators have been chosen, and have been training in secret for the past 12 hours, honing their minds and wits to the sharpest of sharp points.
They can answer the questions however they wish (although they should be aware that a three-word answer is unlikely to yield many points unless it's blindingly funny or is THE definitive answer) - one or two paragraphs would be the optimum, but our warriors are capable of bending the very laws of the universe, so can feel free to expand or contract their answers as they see fit.

May the battle commence!


Question 1:
In an interview this week, Halo developers Bungie stated that their upcoming shooter Halo: Reach was going to be "the biggest game of 2010". In a year expecting new games from the Starcraft, Final Fantasy, God of War, Mass Effect and Bioshock franchises, that's a bold claim to make.

What are some other overly bold statements you've heard in gaming, and did they deliver on their promises?

Question 2:
Virtual racing nuts everywhere had their appetites whetted (and their summer holidays ruined) with news of a Summer 2010 release for the Western versions of Gran Turismo 5. After a host of delays and setbacks, it looks like the launch of the biggest racing game ever is getting closer.

So, panel - what games have kept you waiting just to disappoint you later on?

Question 3:
Hollywood's Natalie Portman was confirmed this week as playing the role of Elizabeth Bennet in the latest adaption of Jane Austen's film-spawning book. However, this one has a bit of a twist.
Zombies.
Yeah, the film is based on the book Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, by Seth Grahame-Smith, and in this film, the five Bennet sisters are all martial arts experts, and guaranteed to slay plenty of undead.

Share with us some classic books or films that you'd like to see given a supernatural twist - bonus points for suitably amusing titles!

Question 4:
It appears that the latest franchise in the once-massive Tony Hawk franchise has well and truly faceplanted, with Tony Hawk's Ride selling a paltry 114,000 copies across all formats in its first week. Seems like a long way from the days when Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 ruled the roost on the PSone.

So, Mature Gamers, name me some other gaming greats that are a mere shadow of their former selves...

Question 5:
Finally, this week details spilled that the US Army's game series aimed at recruiting gamers, America's Army, has cost US Taxpayers a not inconsiderable $33 million dollars over the past decade. Perhaps a bit disappointing considering how distinctly average the games have been.

So what represents the single worst example of value for money you've ever seen in the gaming industry?



Anyway, those are your questions - do your worst, gentlemen! The deadline to answer questions is Midnight GMT (7pm EST) on Wednesday night.

For those of you not directly involved, feel free to rabbit on in the discussion thread here (http://www.mature-gamers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1698). :)

[Iggy]

Question 1:
In an interview this week, Halo developers Bungie stated that their upcoming shooter Halo: Reach was going to be "the biggest game of 2010". In a year expecting new games from the Starcraft, Final Fantasy, God of War, Mass Effect and Bioshock franchises, that's a bold claim to make.

What are some other overly bold statements you've heard in gaming, and did they deliver on their promises?

The gaming industry is built around superlatives. Each new game must at least promise eye popping graphics, sizzling audio and sound effects, and a multi-player online experience. Hype is king if a company is expected to be able to penetrate the youth oriented market. It is not until the games are about to be released and they are reviewed by the numerous gaming magazines and web sites that the shortcomings, typically game-play, are revealed.

Over the years, there have been way too many overly bold statements for me to remember any specific ones. I would say that the vast majority of game developers have delivered on their promises of attractive graphics and sound. Most of them even survive the first handful of trips through the single player versions, at increasing difficulty levels. At some point, most gamers tire of the SP experience and move on to multi-player mode, if they haven’t started there initially, skipping over a lot of SP time on the keyboard/console.

The most innovative game of recent memory was Left 4 Dead. L4D brought a different gaming style to the table by focusing entirely on the teamwork concept, and developing the game in such a way as to penalize those that did not work as part of a team. Left 4 Dead delivered on all counts, which accounts for it’s huge success.

Question 2:
Virtual racing nuts everywhere had their appetites whetted (and their summer holidays ruined) with news of a Summer 2010 release for the Western versions of Gran Turismo 5. After a host of delays and setbacks, it looks like the launch of the biggest racing game ever is getting closer.

So, panel - what games have kept you waiting just to disappoint you later on?

To be honest, I am seldom one to buy a new game right after it is released. I like to wait until more of the bugs have been worked out (some of these bugs end up being significant) Once a game has been out for a month or more, the reviews start rolling in, and that is when you truly find out if the game is going to be worth the money or not. Based on the reviews, I make my decision about purchasing at that point. My focus is long term enjoyment, and while I enjoy the gee-whiz graphics, after a while I tend to look past them and concentrate on actually playing the game rather than sight seeing.

Having never played the original Half Life, I have been anxiously waiting for Black Mesa to be released. But, it too has been plagued with an interminably long development cycle, and now looks like it is being pushed out into 2010 some time.

Question 3:
Hollywood's Natalie Portman was confirmed this week as playing the role of Elizabeth Bennet in the latest adaption of Jane Austen's film-spawning book. However, this one has a bit of a twist.
Zombies.
Yeah, the film is based on the book Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, by Seth Grahame-Smith, and in this film, the five Bennet sisters are all martial arts experts, and guaranteed to slay plenty of undead.

Share with us some classic books or films that you'd like to see given a supernatural twist - bonus points for suitably amusing titles!


Von Ryan’s Express would be a perfect fit for a zombie infestation. I can see Frank Sinatra running along the RR tracks, zombies in hot pursuit. And then there is “Dude, Where’s My Arm?” Ashton Kutcher gets really drunk and gets his arm ripped off by a zombie, and spends the rest of the film looking for it. And then….and then….and then….and then…more zombies. And my all time favorite would be Gigli, in which Ben Affleck says “fuck it, this movie sucks anyway”, and leaves Jennifer Lopez to fend for herself against the bloodthirsty hoard. I would pay money to see THAT!!

Question 4:
It appears that the latest franchise in the once-massive Tony Hawk franchise has well and truly faceplanted, with Tony Hawk's Ride selling a paltry 114,000 copies across all formats in its first week. Seems like a long way from the days when Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 ruled the roost on the PSone.

So, Mature Gamers, name me some other gaming greats that are a mere shadow of their former selves...

After a long string of good quality text adventure games by Infocom, they ended up coming out with the Leather Goddesses of Phobos. Complete with scratch and sniff cards, and a “lewd” playing mode, they basically took a perfectly good game style and trashed it by trying to get cute with it. They should have left well enough alone.

Question 5:
Finally, this week details spilled that the US Army's game series aimed at recruiting gamers, America's Army, has cost US Taxpayers a not inconsiderable $33 million dollars over the past decade. Perhaps a bit disappointing considering how distinctly average the games have been.

So what represents the single worst example of value for money you've ever seen in the gaming industry?

Flight Simulator X. They released a flight simulator that was so processor intensive, that the bulk of the computers in the marketplace couldn’t even render the game at the lowest settings. You ended purchasing a “game” that you couldn’t play until the computers got more powerful, or until you gathered together enough money to buy a top end machine.

[Konrad]

Question 1:
In an interview this week, Halo developers Bungie stated that their upcoming shooter Halo: Reach was going to be "the biggest game of 2010". In a year expecting new games from the Starcraft, Final Fantasy, God of War, Mass Effect and Bioshock franchises, that's a bold claim to make.

What are some other overly bold statements you've heard in gaming, and did they deliver on their promises?


"Game developers often say 'Cutting is shipping'. We begin this year with a vengeance and a chainsaw." - George Broussard, 2009

This is a statement by George Broussard, a man responsible for 3D Realms and, yes indeed, Duke Nukem Forever. Need more be said?


Question 2:
Virtual racing nuts everywhere had their appetites whetted (and their summer holidays ruined) with news of a Summer 2010 release for the Western versions of Gran Turismo 5. After a host of delays and setbacks, it looks like the launch of the biggest racing game ever is getting closer.

So, panel - what games have kept you waiting just to disappoint you later on?


Of recent releases I think I was most disappointed by Far Cry 2. It was difficult to understate the pure awesomeness of what was shown and promised to us prior release.

A beautiful landscape, and (to quote the box I hold in my hand right now) open world gameplay [which] gives you total freedom to play the game you want in a world totally without limits", a revolutionary healing system so detailed that you must literally remove each bullet from your body, realistic fire propagation and fully destructible environments.

Oh dear yes, the game was pretty - and it was certainly large, burning some grass was fun too. Past that, everything about the game proved to be a lie.

It was certainly not without limits... In fact it was divided in four (?) equal quadrants each to be played separately. The revolutionary healing system they bragged about ever so came down to four or five randomly rotating bullet pulling animations. And fully destructible environments? Well, let me just say that right after my truck got stuck on a cardboard shanty for the tenth time - I spent about ten minutes looking back and forth between my game and the words "fully destructible environments" on the box in utter confusion.

Plus, it was hella boring.


Question 3:
Hollywood's Natalie Portman was confirmed this week as playing the role of Elizabeth Bennet in the latest adaption of Jane Austen's film-spawning book. However, this one has a bit of a twist.
Zombies.
Yeah, the film is based on the book Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, by Seth Grahame-Smith, and in this film, the five Bennet sisters are all martial arts experts, and guaranteed to slay plenty of undead.

Share with us some classic books or films that you'd like to see given a supernatural twist - bonus points for suitably amusing titles!


Animal Farm - The Swine Flu Approaches

It could work. The Swine flu would represent capitalist freedoms, it would kill all the pigs and kittens and dogs, and it would be one hell of a social statement. Sprinkled with irony.



Question 4:
It appears that the latest franchise in the once-massive Tony Hawk franchise has well and truly faceplanted, with Tony Hawk's Ride selling a paltry 114,000 copies across all formats in its first week. Seems like a long way from the days when Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 ruled the roost on the PSone.

So, Mature Gamers, name me some other gaming greats that are a mere shadow of their former selves...



Dare I make a bold statement here? Grand Theft Auto. I can't overstate the amount of fun I've had in GTA2. The pure "GOURANGA" madness that was had. And OH the extacy when I first flew a Jumbo Jet in San Andreas to a tattoo parlor.

GTA IV kept me playing for no more than a few days. It was dang cool when I flew out of my frond windshield, and stumbling around drunk luls were had. Past that, it was mediocre game, stripped of what had been accomplished in the past.

I know, I know. "BUT IT'S SO PRETTY."
Fuck off, I'd rather fly a jet into some strippers.


Question 5:
Finally, this week details spilled that the US Army's game series aimed at recruiting gamers, America's Army, has cost US Taxpayers a not inconsiderable $33 million dollars over the past decade. Perhaps a bit disappointing considering how distinctly average the games have been.

So what represents the single worst example of value for money you've ever seen in the gaming industry?


Dearest me, I think a fair example is also quite recent. I direct you towards Rogue Warrior. A $50/60 release with 2 hours worth of singleplayer campaign, and two multiplayer modes with a community of a whole TWO PLAYERS.

Oh yeah... Duke Nukem Forever has also proved to be a money sink for the industry, though I'd compare it more to a black hole.

[MyNameDidntFit]

Question 1:
In an interview this week, Halo developers Bungie stated that their upcoming shooter Halo: Reach was going to be "the biggest game of 2010". In a year expecting new games from the Starcraft, Final Fantasy, God of War, Mass Effect and Bioshock franchises, that's a bold claim to make.

What are some other overly bold statements you've heard in gaming, and did they deliver on their promises?
"WoW-killer". Killing a game with an established userbase as fu-... as really big as that of WoW is like walking into Mordor: it simply isn't done.

F*** Sauron.

Question 2:
Virtual racing nuts everywhere had their appetites whetted (and their summer holidays ruined) with news of a Summer 2010 release for the Western versions of Gran Turismo 5. After a host of delays and setbacks, it looks like the launch of the biggest racing game ever is getting closer.

So, panel - what games have kept you waiting just to disappoint you later on?
Coming from the mouth of a Valve fanboy this will sound weird but... Portal. I saw Portal and I was like O_O and so I sat there, gently stroking myself with anticipation until it arrived and I purchased The Orange Box (a good, uh, 30 months after the scheduled arrival of Episode 2, it's main component -_-).
Let it be said that I was well and truly ready for some bloody awesome Portalling around with awesomeness flying all around me as I made not to clean my keyboard when I was done by the time it finished downloading.
Skip forward to my first time playing it. My first thoughts were "... OK, so these first bits are just tutorialising me... it'll get interesting soon..."
Skip forward to Test Chamber 8: "WHY IS THE TUTORIAL STILL GOING? CAN'T I GET TO A REAL GAME? WHAT IS THIS? IT'S NOT A BLOODY CENTRE FOR ANTS."
11 more Test Chambers and some serious willpower later I was nearly finished, but by God was it the most tedious, God-awful experience of my life... I only forced myself through it as I thought that there would be most Half-Life related information... there wasn't.

F*** Portal.
Question 3:
Hollywood's Natalie Portman was confirmed this week as playing the role of Elizabeth Bennet in the latest adaption of Jane Austen's film-spawning book. However, this one has a bit of a twist.
Zombies.
Yeah, the film is based on the book Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, by Seth Grahame-Smith, and in this film, the five Bennet sisters are all martial arts experts, and guaranteed to slay plenty of undead.

Share with us some classic books or films that you'd like to see given a supernatural twist - bonus points for suitably amusing titles!
Lord of the Flies. Island. Kids. Zombies. Epic? I think so. Suitably amusing title? Why change the original? It fits. In all seriousness, if William Golding had focussed more on "zombies" than making his book a "microcosm of society" his book would be interesting and the movie wouldn't be in bloody black and white.

Because I don't see anything against it in the rules: Konrad, I'm totally going to be an ass and tell you that Swine Flu isn't supernatural. Sheesh man, learn to answer questions >.>

F*** Konrad.

Question 4:
It appears that the latest franchise in the once-massive Tony Hawk franchise has well and truly faceplanted, with Tony Hawk's Ride selling a paltry 114,000 copies across all formats in its first week. Seems like a long way from the days when Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 ruled the roost on the PSone.

So, Mature Gamers, name me some other gaming greats that are a mere shadow of their former selves...
Halo. Many a night of my life was spent sitting in a sleeping bag on a mattress on the floor of my mate's room, a controller in my hand and a controller in his hand as we utterly decimated the Covenant in co-operative on Legendary difficulty time and time again, only stopping our slaughter of the cowardly xenos scum one of us felt the urge to run the other over in a tank, crash a Banshee into the other or simply ram their powersword further up the other person's arse than was thought possible by all those who ever studied anatomy.
Then came Halo 2 and... well, let it just be said that we played it, we finished it and then we went back to molesting the Covenant in Halo 1.
Then... well... then came Halo 3. I've still yet to play that game through to the end simply because THE GODDAMN ORIGINAL GAME IS STILL BETTER WHEN I'VE PLAYED THROUGH THE CAMPAIGN MORE TIMES THAN AN OCTOPUS COULD POKE A FRIGGING STICK AT.

F*** Bungie.

Question 5:
Finally, this week details spilled that the US Army's game series aimed at recruiting gamers, America's Army, has cost US Taxpayers a not inconsiderable $33 million dollars over the past decade. Perhaps a bit disappointing considering how distinctly average the games have been.

So what represents the single worst example of value for money you've ever seen in the gaming industry?
World of Warcraft will now receive a second shout-out in this post, simply because WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ALL THINKING?? "Huh?" you say, well good. Because if you managed to say "Huh?" you aren't sitting in your chair making a badly rendered idiot run around in a badly rendered world killing badly rendered creatures for badly rendered loot with your badly rendered "friends" on your badly rendered epic mounts.
Despite saying "badly rendered" six times in that last sentence, I don't actually care about the graphics (or lack thereof) in WoW... I care that you have to keep paying to play it. When I buy something, I expect to play it until I don't want to play it and have the ability to play it whenever I damn well please. But noooooooooo, paying for it doesn't apparently let me actually play it.
OK, so, the concept of ppm games isn't actually that bad considering the cost of running servers on which God-knows-how-many badly rendered idiots are running around farming loot and grinding levels. But if I'm going to pay for something consistently I want it to be GOOD. To be FUN. To be something I ENJOY. I do NOT ENJOY grinding. I do NOT ENJOY farming. I started a new character on my ex-girlfriend's account one time and played an hour or two at her insistence (because I bagged her for playing it) and then I was bored as hell and couldn't play longer. So I said this and she says something I'd heard before "oh but you need to be higher levels before it's fun"...

WHAT THE HELL.

I want to buy a game and play the game and have fun. Not wait three months of boring as hell grinding before I can have the fun I paid for. Even then I was like "OK, let me play your character" and so she did and I was playing her Lvl 60 somethingarather flying about on her mount and killing stuff and then I was like "THIS ISN'T FUN".

And now she's my ex.

And I still hate WoW.

F*** WoW.

[Rob]

Question 1:
In an interview this week, Halo developers Bungie stated that their upcoming shooterHalo: Reach*was going to be "the biggest game of 2010". In a year expecting new games from the Starcraft, Final Fantasy, God of War, Mass Effect and Bioshock franchises, that's a bold claim to make.

What are some other overly bold statements you've heard in gaming, and did they deliver on their promises?

Quote from an interview with Sony's UK managing director Ray Maguire

"One of the things we're proud of is that Sony is a company about innovation. It's reasonable easy to walk down an aisle and choose a chip, a graphics card and a power supply and to put them together and present them as a product. What we as a company do, and is in our heart and soul, is to think that none of those components is good enough. We need to be looking at something that no-one else provides. We need to be looking at components that when put together create a device that is looking into the future rather than looking at 'the now'. "

NUTS! There is very little innovation in the PS3.

BluRay – Does anyone see value in expensive physical media anymore? With broadband penetration reaching very high rates in modern countries (aka their target markets) why not stream HD?

Online experience – Late to the game and still can't nail basic features as intuitively as Microsoft has. Not including a mic with the PS3 says to me that voice is not important to multiplayer gaming. FAIL!

LOL Sony is developing a wand.
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/311/magicwando.jpg (http://img690.imageshack.us/i/magicwando.jpg/)
It's an improvement on an existing concept brought to market by Nintendo.
An innovation in the industry would be project Natal from Microsoft which uses your entire body as a controller.

Ironically Sony did in fact just pick pieces of hardware and put them together... they just picked the most expensive ones.



Question 2:
Virtual racing nuts everywhere had their appetites whetted (and their summer holidays ruined) with news of a Summer 2010 release for the Western versions of Gran Turismo 5. After a host of delays and setbacks, it looks like the launch of the biggest racing game ever is getting closer.

So, panel - what games have kept you waiting just to disappoint you later on?

Brothers in Arms Series

They really nailed the concept of a squad based WWII shooter. The thing that ruins its chance of being a great game is that the AI is horrible. Your teamates are always on the wrong side of cover. They should have made a cooperative mode so I could atleast rely on one of my teamates to not stand up and sprint towards gunfire.

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/8793/biahh001.jpg (http://img697.imageshack.us/i/biahh001.jpg/)

Question 3:
Hollywood's Natalie Portman was confirmed this week as playing the role of Elizabeth Bennet in the latest adaption of Jane Austen's film-spawning book. However, this one has a bit of a twist.
Zombies.
Yeah, the film is based on the book*Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, by Seth Grahame-Smith, and in this film, the five Bennet sisters are all martial arts experts, and guaranteed to slay plenty of undead.

Share with us some classic books or films that you'd like to see given a supernatural twist - bonus points for suitably amusing titles!

I'm sorry did you someone just say ...
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/6885/natalieportman5.jpg (http://img97.imageshack.us/i/natalieportman5.jpg/)
and zombies?!

I would without a doubt turn the TV series Friends into a zombie survival horror show in which Rachel, Joey, Monica, Chandler, Feebi, and Ross all survive the zompocolypse and are forced to leave the city and fend off canibals. They wander from town to town salvaging what they can find. Monica always bitches about how dirty everything is. Rachel turns into a zombie killing machine. Joey dies of hunger in the Pilot episode. Chandler turns into a zombie but still trails the team, makes jokes, and occasionally tries to nibble on someone. Feebi always causes near death experiences for the team but stays upbeat about it. Ross is the "Bill" of the group and leads them around.

Question 4:
It appears that the latest franchise in the once-massive*Tony Hawk*franchise has well and truly faceplanted, with*Tony Hawk's Ride*selling a paltry 114,000 copies across all formats in its first week. Seems like a long way from the days when Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 ruled the roost on the PSone.

So, Mature Gamers, name me some other gaming greats that are a mere shadow of their former selves...

Sonic the Hedgehog! Yeah so he is a little weird but he is quick as $%# and can jump really far.
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/3794/sonicyq.jpg (http://img29.imageshack.us/i/sonicyq.jpg/)

Sega never really figured out how keep sonic games fun. The current releases always end up getting average reviews or worse. R.I.P. Sonic

Question 5:
Finally, this week details spilled that the US Army's game series aimed at recruiting gamers,*America's Army, has cost US Taxpayers a not inconsiderable $33 million dollars over the past decade. Perhaps a bit disappointing considering how distinctly average the games have been.

So what represents the single worst example of value for money you've ever seen in the gaming industry?

Oh snap lets just talk about America's Army.

I think it's scary that the U.S. military is allowed to train children skills that will make them better killers. I'm totally for artists being able to express their creativity by creating violent games but when a nation funds a game like America's Army its completely wrong. It's a training tool that only shows certain aspects of a soldiers life. Where is the mode that allows me to continue the game as a parapalegic? How about the mode that shows the lonliness a soldier feels when seperated from their country and the people they love? If they are going to put a tool out into the gaming environment then they should have to do it right. RAWR serious conversation!

On the other hand its cool that our generation and those after us are capable of a digital war or perhaps controlling unmanned vehicles.

Have any of you seen the movie Surrogates? In the movie humans have replaced their bodies with surrogate robotic bodies. Entire wars are fought with surrogate soldiers to scale down real human loss. That's not going to be science fiction for to much longer. As robotics become more life like in their abilities we will see them more often. The U.S. military is already successful in deploying primative unmanned vehicles. They have billions tied up in contracts for more unmanned vehicles. Its the way things will be done. Cool stuff.

[Jason]

...and the scores are in! I'll tally up the totals and go through the marking in a second. :)

[Jason]

Right - the combatants' answers have been submitted, they've pitted their wits against each other in a battle of the brains, so let's see who's top dog and who's going home in a doggy bag...

Question 1:
What are some other overly bold statements you've heard in gaming, and did they deliver on their promises?

The gaming industry is built around superlatives. Each new game must at least promise eye popping graphics, sizzling audio and sound effects, and a multi-player online experience.-1 - what about Heavy Rain for the PS3, Batman: Arkham Asylum for all platforms, Dragon Age: Origins... it's a major plus, but still not essential. Hype is king if a company is expected to be able to penetrate the youth oriented market.+2 It is not until the games are about to be released and they are reviewed by the numerous gaming magazines and web sites that the shortcomings, typically game-play, are revealed.

Over the years, there have been way too many overly bold statements for me to remember any specific ones. I would say that the vast majority of game developers have delivered on their promises of attractive graphics and sound. +1 Most of them even survive the first handful of trips through the single player versions, at increasing difficulty levels. At some point, most gamers tire of the SP experience and move on to multi-player mode, if they haven’t started there initially, skipping over a lot of SP time on the keyboard/console.

The most innovative game of recent memory was Left 4 Dead. L4D brought a different gaming style to the table by focusing entirely on the teamwork concept, and developing the game in such a way as to penalize those that did not work as part of a team. +1 Left 4 Dead delivered on all counts, which accounts for it’s huge success.

You managed to get quite a few points there, despite not answering the actual question, which was to 'name some overly bold statements in gaming', so another -1 for you. :p

"Game developers often say 'Cutting is shipping'. We begin this year with a vengeance and a chainsaw." - George Broussard, 2009

This is a statement by George Broussard, a man responsible for 3D Realms and, yes indeed, Duke Nukem Forever. Need more be said?+4

Ha, obvious answer, but you'll get points all day for that one, especially as it's such a terrible soundbite. It makes me wonder, do game developers really say that?

"WoW-killer". Killing a game with an established userbase as fu-... as really big as that of WoW is like walking into Mordor: -1 – Lord of The Rings references will be met with steely silence by this host. it simply isn't done. +4 – unconventional answer, hence points, plus you actually have a valid point, which is also a good reason to give points, I guess.

F*** Sauron. +1 ...and points for that. F*** the entire lot of them.

I hate WoW. I hate it with a passion, and answers that are derogatory towards it are pretty much nailed on for easy points in this game, but you have a good point. WoW is undoubtedly the world’s biggest game. You’re not going to kill it easily.


Quote from an interview with Sony's UK managing director Ray Maguire

"One of the things we're proud of is that Sony is a company about innovation. It's reasonable easy to walk down an aisle and choose a chip, a graphics card and a power supply and to put them together and present them as a product. What we as a company do, and is in our heart and soul, is to think that none of those components is good enough. We need to be looking at something that no-one else provides. We need to be looking at components that when put together create a device that is looking into the future rather than looking at 'the now'. "

NUTS! There is very little innovation in the PS3.

BluRay – Does anyone see value in expensive physical media anymore? With broadband penetration reaching very high rates in modern countries (aka their target markets) why not stream HD? -1 - BluRay discs have allowed PS3 gamers games like Uncharted 2, Metal Gear Solid 4 and Heavy Rain - games that simply won't fit on DVD, plus the fact that BluRay is going to be the next standard in physical media, and prices WILL come down, just like with DVDs.

Online experience – Late to the game and still can't nail basic features as intuitively as Microsoft has. Not including a mic with the PS3 says to me that voice is not important to multiplayer gaming. FAIL! +1 - difficult to argue with you there - the PS3 does lag well behind the 360 in online features.

LOL Sony is developing a wand.
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/311/magicwando.jpg (http://img690.imageshack.us/i/magicwando.jpg/)
It's an improvement on an existing concept brought to market by Nintendo.
An innovation in the industry would be project Natal from Microsoft which uses your entire body as a controller. +3 - Natal will be amazing IF it works, but Sony's wand does stink of desperate bandwagon-jumping.

Ironically Sony did in fact just pick pieces of hardware and put them together... they just picked the most expensive ones. -1 - not technically true. The Cell processor the PS3 uses was fairly unique at the time, and may still be (hardcore techie stuff isn't my forte) now, hence the sheer processor grunt the PS3 is capable of chucking out.


A brave move there, taking a swipe at the PS3 – you lost a couple of points for trying to pick the hardware to bits, but you got them back and then some for pointing out how ridiculous the ‘Wand’ is.

After Question 1:
Iggy: 2pts
Konrad: 4pts
MNDF: 4pts
RRFZ: 2pts


A good start from MNDF and Konrad, whilst Iggy and Rob can't be separated on two points each.



Question 2:
What games have kept you waiting just to disappoint you later on?

To be honest, I am seldom one to buy a new game right after it is released. I like to wait until more of the bugs have been worked out (some of these bugs end up being significant) +1 Once a game has been out for a month or more, the reviews start rolling in, -1 - Uncharted 2 was listing 30+ reviews on Metacritic before it had even launched - it's the exception rather than the norm for games to only be reviewed after the shipping date these days. and that is when you truly find out if the game is going to be worth the money or not. +1 Based on the reviews, I make my decision about purchasing at that point. My focus is long term enjoyment, and while I enjoy the gee-whiz graphics, after a while I tend to look past them and concentrate on actually playing the game rather than sight seeing.

Having never played the original Half Life, I have been anxiously waiting for Black Mesa to be released. +2 But, it too has been plagued with an interminably long development cycle, and now looks like it is being pushed out into 2010 some time. +1

Good shout for Black Mesa - I only became aware of this game recently, but already I'm getting fed up of waiting... how hard can it be? It's basically a carbon copy of the original, isn't it?

Of recent releases I think I was most disappointed by Far Cry 2. +2 It was difficult to understate the pure awesomeness of what was shown and promised to us prior release.

A beautiful landscape, and (to quote the box I hold in my hand right now) open world gameplay [which] gives you total freedom to play the game you want in a world totally without limits", a revolutionary healing system so detailed that you must literally remove each bullet from your body, realistic fire propagation and fully destructible environments.

Oh dear yes, the game was pretty - and it was certainly large, burning some grass was fun too. Past that, everything about the game proved to be a lie. +1 - not strictly true, but a bold statement, and we love those here... :D

It was certainly not without limits... In fact it was divided in four (?) equal quadrants each to be played separately. -1 - Of all the game's faults, the size of the map definitely isn't one of them. Plus I have TWO(!) different versions of the game in my hands right now, and neither mentions 'without limits'. So there. :p The revolutionary healing system they bragged about ever so came down to four or five randomly rotating bullet pulling animations. And fully destructible environments? Well, let me just say that right after my truck got stuck on a cardboard shanty for the tenth time +2 -I really, really hated that...- I spent about ten minutes looking back and forth between my game and the words "fully destructible environments" on the box in utter confusion.

Plus, it was hella boring. +1

Good answer. This game was actually the one that made me cancel my subscription to a well-known PC Games magazine in 2008 after they gave it a whopping 94%, and I obligingly ran out to buy it on their advice. A happy bunny I was not.

Coming from the mouth of a Valve fanboy this will sound weird but... Portal. +1 - controversial... I like it.I saw Portal and I was like O_O and so I sat there, gently stroking myself with anticipation until it arrived and I purchased The Orange Box (a good, uh, 30 months after the scheduled arrival of Episode 2, it's main component -_-).
Let it be said that I was well and truly ready for some bloody awesome Portalling around with awesomeness flying all around me as I made not to clean my keyboard when I was done by the time it finished downloading.
Skip forward to my first time playing it. My first thoughts were "... OK, so these first bits are just tutorialising me... it'll get interesting soon..."
Skip forward to Test Chamber 8: "WHY IS THE TUTORIAL STILL GOING? CAN'T I GET TO A REAL GAME? WHAT IS THIS? IT'S NOT A BLOODY CENTRE FOR ANTS." +2
11 more Test Chambers and some serious willpower later I was nearly finished, but by God was it the most tedious, God-awful experience of my life... I only forced myself through it as I thought that there would be most Half-Life related information... there wasn't. +1 - but there was cake.

F*** Portal.

Good answer. I liked Portal, mind. I got it as part of The Orange Box with no prior knowledge, and therefore had no expectations. I can see why you'd be annoyed if you'd got excited about it, mind. Still, Portal 2 is on the way...

Brothers in Arms Series

They really nailed the concept of a squad based WWII shooter. The thing that ruins its chance of being a great game is that the AI is horrible. +2 - this is one of my absolute pet hates - awesome games that are killed by shoddy AI. I'm looking at you, ArmA II. Your teamates are always on the wrong side of cover. They should have made a cooperative mode so I could atleast rely on one of my teamates to not stand up and sprint towards gunfire. +1

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/8793/biahh001.jpg (http://img697.imageshack.us/i/biahh001.jpg/) +1 – picture amused me, hence points.

The Brothers in Arms series has the potential to really be up there with Company Of Heroes as one of the definitive WWII games, but it just doesn’t seem to be happening, probably due to the issues you pointed out – no decent multiplayer options, and poor AI. Good answer. In fact, +1 – here’s a bonus point

After Question 2:
Iggy: 6pts
Konrad: 9pts
MNDF: 8pts
RRFZ: 7pts


After round 2, Iggy is at the back of the pack with six points, whilst Konrad leads the way with an impressive 9 points. Still, a long way to go...



Question 3:
Share with us some classic books or films that you'd like to see given a supernatural twist - bonus points for suitably amusing titles!

Von Ryan’s Express would be a perfect fit for a zombie infestation. +1 I can see Frank Sinatra running along the RR tracks, zombies in hot pursuit. And then there is “Dude, Where’s My Arm?” +2 -hahahahaha... Ashton Kutcher gets really drunk and gets his arm ripped off by a zombie, +1 - I'd pay to watch that! and spends the rest of the film looking for it. And then….and then….and then….and then…more zombies. And my all time favorite would be Gigli, in which Ben Affleck says “fuck it, this movie sucks anyway”, and leaves Jennifer Lopez to fend for herself against the bloodthirsty hoard. +1 - I'd actually forgotten that film existed. Points because the existence of zombies in it could hardly make it any worse. I would pay money to see THAT!!

Haha, great answer. The thought of Ashton Kutcher having his arm ripped off will keep me smiling right through the day...

Animal Farm - The Swine Flu Approaches +2 - haha, topical.. I like it.

It could work. The Swine flu would represent capitalist freedoms, it would kill all the pigs and kittens and dogs, and it would be one hell of a social statement. (+1) Sprinkled with irony.

Lord of the Flies. Island. Kids. Zombies. Epic? I think so. Suitably amusing title? Why change the original? It fits. +1 - There simply aren't enough children being eaten by zombies in films these days... In all seriousness, if William Golding had focussed more on "zombies" than making his book a "microcosm of society" his book would be interesting +1 - You're effectively calling one of the best books of the last century 'dull'. I like it. and the movie wouldn't be in bloody black and white. -1 - some of my favourite films are in black and white, you philistine!

Because I don't see anything against it in the rules: Konrad, I'm totally going to be an ass and tell you that Swine Flu isn't supernatural. Sheesh man, learn to answer questions >.> Hey hey!! We have our first personal attack on another contestant's answers! +3 points for you, -1 point for Konrad

F*** Konrad.

I quite liked Lord of the Flies, but you have a point when you say that it could be improved by zombies. But then again, what couldn't? It should be noted at this point that whilst he only got 2 points for his answer, MNDF gained 3 for attacking Konrad's answer. That's unfair scoring right there. :p

I'm sorry did you someone just say ...
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/6885/natalieportman5.jpg (http://img97.imageshack.us/i/natalieportman5.jpg/)
and zombies?! +2 - Points for a picture of Natalie Portman. Good on you, sir.

I would without a doubt turn the TV series Friends into a zombie survival horror show in which Rachel, Joey, Monica, Chandler, Feebi, -1 for mis-spelling Phoebe. I'm a grammar nazi. :p and Ross all survive the zompocolypse and are forced to leave the city and fend off cannibals. They wander from town to town salvaging what they can find. Monica always bitches about how dirty everything is. Rachel turns into a zombie killing machine. +2 - Jennifer Aniston killing zombies makes me go all fuzzy inside. Joey dies of hunger in the Pilot episode. Chandler turns into a zombie but still trails the team, makes jokes, and occasionally tries to nibble on someone. Feebi always causes near death experiences for the team but stays upbeat about it. Ross is the "Bill" of the group and leads them around. +1 - you now have me wondering what David Schwimmer would look like crossed with Bill. It's making me lol.

Interesting move to try it with the Friends cast - I have to say I'm a little disappointed there was no reference to Ugly Naked Guy though. :p

After Question 3:
Iggy: 11pts
Konrad: 11pts
MNDF: 12pts
RRFZ: 11pts


After three rounds, there's just ONE point between first and last, MNDF leading the way simply because he stuck the boot into one of the other contestants. A true Aussie gent. A big round for Iggy there, who leapt right back into contention with 5 points that round.



Question 4:
Name me some other gaming greats that are a mere shadow of their former selves...

After a long string of good quality text adventure games by Infocom, they ended up coming out with the Leather Goddesses of Phobos. +2 for actually knowing that a game like that existed and having the guts to walk up to the counter and hand it to the cashier! Complete with scratch and sniff cards, and a “lewd” playing mode, they basically took a perfectly good game style and trashed it by trying to get cute with it. +2 -How many times have we seen that one over the years? They should have left well enough alone.

Ooh, good retro answer. In a way I quite miss text adventures, but then when I remember the frustration of constantly trying to figure out exactly which combination of illogical words I have to input in which order through a painstaking trial and error process, the nostalgia quickly passes.

Dare I make a bold statement here? Grand Theft Auto. +2 I can't overstate the amount of fun I've had in GTA2. The pure "GOURANGA" madness that was had. And OH the extacy when I first flew a Jumbo Jet in San Andreas to a tattoo parlor. +1

GTA IV kept me playing for no more than a few days. It was dang cool when I flew out of my front windshield, and stumbling around drunk luls were had. +1 - the best part of the game without doubt: "HEyYy, YELLOW CAR!" Past that, it was mediocre game, stripped of what had been accomplished in the past.

I know, I know. "BUT IT'S SO PRETTY."
Fuck off, I'd rather fly a jet into some strippers. +1 - you'll get points just for coming up with a sentence as ludicrous as that.

See, Konrad's got the idea here - just suck up to me by agreeing with my own personal opinions on Far Cry 2 and GTA IV, and there's points to be had from start to finish! :p

Halo. +1 - if there was a 'right' answer for this, Halo would be it in my eyes. Many a night of my life was spent sitting in a sleeping bag on a mattress on the floor of my mate's room, a controller in my hand and a controller in his hand as we utterly decimated the Covenant in co-operative on Legendary difficulty time and time again +1 - there are very few gamers out there who this sentence hasn't applied to. Halo 1 is a fantastic game., only stopping our slaughter of the cowardly xenos scum one of us felt the urge to run the other over in a tank, crash a Banshee into the other or simply ram their powersword further up the other person's arse than was thought possible by all those who ever studied anatomy.
Then came Halo 2 and... well, let it just be said that we played it, we finished it and then we went back to molesting the Covenant in Halo 1.
Then... well... then came Halo 3. I've still yet to play that game through to the end simply because THE GODDAMN ORIGINAL GAME IS STILL BETTER WHEN I'VE PLAYED THROUGH THE CAMPAIGN MORE TIMES THAN AN OCTOPUS COULD POKE A FRIGGING STICK AT. +2 - Halo 3 was spectacularly meh...

F*** Bungie.

When you look back at Halo 1 then look at Halo 3, you can't help but be disappointed that they didn't make more of such a promising series. It's perhaps ironic that the subtitle of the first game was 'Combat Evolved', which is the one thing the Halo series hasn't done - evolve.

Sonic the Hedgehog! +3 Yeah so he is a little weird but he is quick as $%# and can jump really far.
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/3794/sonicyq.jpg (http://img29.imageshack.us/i/sonicyq.jpg/)

Sega never really figured out how keep sonic games fun. The current releases always end up getting average reviews or worse. +1 R.I.P. Sonic

Ah, you missed out on what would have been a glorious pun (and therefore loads of points) with Sonic/Shadow... Still, it's a good answer - the only good Sonic game for about fifteen years was Mario and Sonic at the Olympic games, and that wasn't even Sonic exclusive.

After Question 4:
Iggy: 15pts
Konrad: 16pts
MNDF: 16pts
RRFZ: 15pts


Egads, this is close. And I've not even been doctoring the scores. With just one question left, it's all up for grabs - anyone can win it with a strong answer, or lose it by talking bollocks...



Question 5:
What represents the single worst example of value for money you've ever seen in the gaming industry?

Flight Simulator X. They released a flight simulator that was so processor intensive, that the bulk of the computers in the marketplace couldn’t even render the game at the lowest settings. +2 - didn't they do something similar with GTA IV? Apparently existing PCs can't even run it at its highest settings... You ended purchasing a “game” +1 for pointing out that Flight Sim is not a game! that you couldn’t play until the computers got more powerful, or until you gathered together enough money to buy a top end machine. +1 - it's basically a microcosm of the PC Gaming industry as a whole...

Do they even make these any more? All I remember was getting one of them and spending hours trying to fly a 747 upside down underneath Tower Bridge in London. Took me a few days, but I got there in the end.

Dearest me, I think a fair example is also quite recent. I direct you towards Rogue Warrior. +2 - that game just looked like pure 'bad' in a DVD case. A $50/60 release with 2 hours worth of singleplayer campaign, and two multiplayer modes with a community of a whole TWO PLAYERS.

Oh yeah... Duke Nukem Forever has also proved to be a money sink for the industry, though I'd compare it more to a black hole. +1 -and the obligatory point for slagging off Duke Forever.

The amount of shit some devs turn out and expect people to pay $60 for is distressing. It makes me wonder how some of them haven't gone out of business years ago...


World of Warcraft will now receive a second shout-out in this post, simply because WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ALL THINKING?? +2 - points all day for bashing WoW with this host in the chair. "Huh?" you say, well good. Because if you managed to say "Huh?" you aren't sitting in your chair making a badly rendered idiot run around in a badly rendered world killing badly rendered creatures for badly rendered loot with your badly rendered "friends" on your badly rendered epic mounts. +1 - WoW is a fugly game, to be sure.
Despite saying "badly rendered" six times in that last sentence, I don't actually care about the graphics (or lack thereof) in WoW... I care that you have to keep paying to play it. When I buy something, I expect to play it until I don't want to play it and have the ability to play it whenever I damn well please. But noooooooooo, paying for it doesn't apparently let me actually play it. -1 - in fairness, there are plenty of other games out there that are pay-per-month, of varying popularity. EVE online, Everquest, Champions Online, City of Heroes...
OK, so, the concept of ppm games isn't actually that bad considering the cost of running servers on which God-knows-how-many badly rendered idiots are running around farming loot and grinding levels. But if I'm going to pay for something consistently I want it to be GOOD. To be FUN. To be something I ENJOY. I do NOT ENJOY grinding. I do NOT ENJOY farming. +1 I started a new character on my ex-girlfriend's account one time and played an hour or two at her insistence (because I bagged her for playing it) and then I was bored as hell and couldn't play longer. So I said this and she says something I'd heard before "oh but you need to be higher levels before it's fun"...

WHAT THE HELL.

I want to buy a game and play the game and have fun. Not wait three months of boring as hell grinding before I can have the fun I paid for. +1 Even then I was like "OK, let me play your character" and so she did and I was playing her Lvl 60 somethingarather flying about on her mount and killing stuff and then I was like "THIS ISN'T FUN".

And now she's my ex.

And I still hate WoW.

F*** WoW.+1 - yeah. Fuck WoW and your millions upon millions of subscribers, and your massive community, and your millions of dollars you make from the game, and your right to go down in history as one of the biggest games of all time... ah.

It's already been discussed, but you'll get points every time from me for bashing WoW. It's more of a drug than a game - it has millions of people staring blankly at their screens for hours at a time, doing repetitive actions and generally acting strangely in order to satisfy their habits. Worrying.
And has anyone else noticed that as the quiz goes on, and MNDF gets angrier, his answers get longer? I’m just glad I didn’t go with ten questions...


Oh snap lets just talk about America's Army.

I think it's scary that the U.S. military is allowed to train children skills that will make them better killers. -1 - I may be wrong, but isn't AA rated Teen? Hardly children, and let's be honest, it's no worse than half the games the kids have been playing for years already. I'm totally for artists being able to express their creativity by creating violent games but when a nation funds a game like America's Army its completely wrong. It's a training tool that only shows certain aspects of a soldiers life. +2 - very good point Where is the mode that allows me to continue the game as a parapalegic? +1 - I might be sick, but this put a mental image in my head that made me snort OJ through my nose. Have a point, sir. How about the mode that shows the lonliness a soldiers feels when seperated from their country and the people they love? If they are going to put a tool out into the gaming environment then they should have to do it right. +2 - I don't think anyone's under the illusion it's anything other than a thinly-veiled recruiting tool, but you're right. It paints a rose-tinted view of the situation. RAWR serious conversation!

On the other hand its cool that our generation and those after us are capable of a digital war or perhaps controlling unmanned vehicles.

Have any of you seen the movie Surrogates? In the movie humans have replaced their bodies with surrogate robotic bodies. Entire wars are fought with surrogate soldiers to scale down real human loss. That's not going to be scientific fiction for to much longer. As robotics become more life like in their abilities we will see them more often. The U.S. military is already successful in deploying primative unmanned vehicles. They have billions tied up in contracts for more unmanned vehicles. Its the way things will be done. Cool stuff. -1 - interesting, but irrelevant to the question. :p


Good answer. You really racked up the points in the first half, then rambled a bit at the end, but big points there.


So... the moment of truth... *drumroll*




FINAL SCORES!
:1st: MNDF: 21pts
:2nd: Konrad: 19pts
:2nd: Iggy: 19pts
:upset: RRFZ: 18pts


So, congratulations to MyNameDidntFit - in the end, it was shameless bashing of World of Warcraft (not to mention his pointing out holes in others' answers) that won it for him. Not only has he fulfilled the Aussie stereotype of winning at everything, he's earned his place in history as the first ever winner of this game.

Congrats to all that took part, it was a pleasure marking your answers, and it had me chortling away to myself on several occasions - it's a cliche, not to mention factually incorrect, but you're all winners today. Thank you for taking part. :)