I donated to the cause, even though I'm not sure I'm interested in a point and click adventure game. The video content should be worth it, at least.

It looks pretty hideous, really. I've got the black ccp that MC has and I think it looks much better.

Fact > Opinion

Paying for P2P isn't better than getting P2P and sometimes (mostly with 1st/2nd party games) dedicated servers for free.

XBL>PSN duh

Nope

I pretty much bought a PSP to play this game. I've spent most of my time since buying it playing Monster Hunter Freedom Unite (and have now moved on to Tri), though.

Nothing wrong with playing Sims.

I don't think 47 is a small number.

I didn't say it was.

Either way, I don't think the bugs of the PS3 version is really going to lower the score all that much. The game is a buggy mess on both systems anyway.

It could also be that the PS3 version has far less reviews to calculate the average.

PS3 has way better games than the 360 anyway.

Demon's Souls is an awesome game.

At the very least it is going to be out here by March.

I've played it. I like Modern Warfare much more (dedicated servers [and thus a greater number of players and mods]/less bugs and hacks [only applies to PC version, of course]/far more balanced [partly because there's less bugs and hacks]/greater community/buying MW doesn't say to Activision that you enjoy poor service/etc.).

The COD collection doesn't have MW2, and MW2 isn't even on special =\

Can't think of anything else I'd want off Steam...

Why would you want MW2 on PC?

Why would you want MW2 at all?

twas, i had all 3 and used xbox the most, ps2 the least.

Why would you do this?

The Xbox was awful. The PS2 was incredible.

Yeah, everything I've read suggests the 3DS is going to have storage built into it, which is definitely a new thing for handhelds. I wonder how much storage there'll be though, since the 3DS carts will have a max size of 2GB (which will probably go up later in its life).

Isn't there some Move game that comes packaged with a PS Eye Camera and one of the Move stick thingies? That just leaves people having to shell out for the other stick thing, which should cost the price a fair bit.

Unless that package has already been taken into account in the calculations above, of course.

The graphics on the Wii are fine. It's not like it matters anyway, since graphics don't make the game. The problem with the Wii was that it was so cheap and its gimmick was so appealing to old people that shovelware just drowned out any possibility of the Wii getting a strong library. Consumers soon realised that the games on the Wii just weren't very good, which sort of ruined any chance decent developers had of getting their game picked up.

It's also pretty easy to mod, so piracy is a bit of an issue as well.

So I guess if MC and admeister are saying they would have preferred the Wii to be HD because it would have meant a lower install base and thus less shovelware and thus a greater chance of the Wii having a stronger library, then I agree. Otherwise, no.

I might have sub-consciously picked up that line as I scrolled through and it reminded of what I had read earlier. All I know is I skimmed through and thought YOU CAN INSTALL GAMES.

Apparently the 3DS will come with an internal hard drive so you can install your games on it.

No, I'm pretty sure it's the usual popping out 3D. The screen has a resolution of 800 x 240, which is split in half to give two images of a resolution of 400 x 240. Each eye picks up one of the images, which is pretty much how stereoscopic 3D works.

The game looks really, really pretty.

Donkey and Diddy look pretty awful.

I've seen a few hands-on videos of Skyward Sword and the controls work perfectly. However, I really don't like the name Skyward Sword.

Also: http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=zHAawG5Dm5Z5aQ0GYq45A4h4l5k2TGxc

Nintendo definitely won this year. 3DS looks great and so do most of the titles coming to the Wii (especially the new Kirby game).

Just remembered Portal 2, and hoping for Batman 2.

Valve has already announced that Portal 2 won't be at E3. They also just announced that the game has been delayed until 2011.

Waterworld 4.5/5
Picked this up off a mate, haven't seen it in like 15 years - still so very epic. R.I.P Dennis Hopper.

Waterworld is epic now?

I am pretty sure they don't charge for DLC on consoles because they need to make up for lost sales. They really doesn't make sense at all given the amount of piracy of PC games. (Good) Game developers who work with the PC understand that they're only going to sell their games if they offer great service. This is why Valve's games sell really well and Assassin's Creed 2 and anything else with annoying DRM (Spore) don't. The reason they charge for DLC on consoles is because they can get away with it. Console gamers don't have a choice, and I imagine the developers are forced to slap a price on everything by Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo (especially Microsoft). This idea that they can get away with it has carried over to the PC recently, like with Modern Warfare 2. However, if I remember correctly, only around two percent of the total purchases of the game were made on the PC. Activision offered really, really sh*tty service with that game and nobody wanted to buy it. The stimulus package went on sale on steam two or three times within a month - I like to imagine it's because nobody bought it.

Anyway, in response to the original poster, I have no idea why you're angry with Steam. The cost of DLC and the DRM used is entirely up to the developers of the game. Valve are the good guys when it comes to PC gaming.

Everywhere.

I hear the AI is especially awful and that the cover system doesn't work very well. I have heard that the effect you can make on the story is actually very impressive, but the story itself isn't. I haven't played it, though.

Lots of people like to think the iPad is Apple's answer to netbooks - including Apple. The fact of the matter is that it's just a large iPod Touch that's not very useful for much else. The only use it has over an iPod Touch, I imagine, is the ability to read e-books. I've never been a fan of reading from a screen (or reading at all, really), but I don't know how much more useful they'd be than a Netbook for that kind of stuff. You don't even have to go with a netbook! There are alternative electronics that offer the same services the iPad does (save for the applications [which are pretty much universally useless anyway]) while being open platform that, yanno, supports industry standards.

Anyway, at least with a netbook/alternative you aren't restricted only to what Apple wants you to do. Honestly, I have no idea why people put up with what Apple is doing when Microsoft were heavily criticised for doing much the same thing. I just don't get it.

I've heard it's not very good.

I just don't really see the point of a large iPod Touch. When it comes to actual work, using a touch screen would be awful.