Ush's Videogames review thread!

Um, don't mind me asking, but how did FF get into a Diablo thread? 😖 Diablo is nothing like FF, it uses CGI yeah, but thats because it has a storyplot worth following. And if anything, you wouldn't want to watch the storyplot with in game graphics now would you, there are certain things you wouldn't be able to do 😖

Most of these games without CGI are either because they have no plot, the plot is very simple, or the way in which the game is designed means it doesn't need CGI, such as various FPS games which rarely need CGI as you see everything through the chracters eyes anyway. But where CGI comes into this is beyond me.

Originally posted by Pulse2
Um, don't mind me asking, but how did FF get into a Diablo thread? 😖 Diablo is nothing like FF, it uses CGI yeah, but thats because it has a storyplot worth following. And if anything, you wouldn't want to watch the storyplot with in game graphics now would you, there are certain things you wouldn't be able to do 😖

Most of these games without CGI are either because they have no plot, the plot is very simple, or the way in which the game is designed means it doesn't need CGI, such as various FPS games which rarely need CGI as you see everything through the chracters eyes anyway. But where CGI comes into this is beyond me.

😑

I think you clicked on the wrong thread, this thread has nothing to do with Diablo.

Originally posted by Lana
😑

I think you clicked on the wrong thread, this thread has nothing to do with Diablo.

While I'm here, might as well keep the CGI contribution part 🙂

I have four and a half billion DS games to review as well, actually.

Though that's a slight exaggeration.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I have four and a half billion DS games to review as well, actually.

Though that's a slight exaggeration.

Yeah shouldn't be to hard though because most of them are short, well shorter than FFX.

I'll take out Mario kart DS for you with one sentence.
The culminations of all Mario karts perfected and shrunk down.

I spent an amount of time on Dawn of Sorrow thast wasn't totally out of the FFX comparison, what with it encouraging you to go through three times.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I spent an amount of time on Dawn of Sorrow thast wasn't totally out of the FFX comparison, what with it encouraging you to go through three times.

and now the new on is out, and it will forcibly make you go through it three times as well. Just started playing the game and its better than dawn of sorrow so far.

Not out here yet, sadly. Soon though.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not out here yet, sadly. Soon though.

That doesn't make sense to me the UK is closer to Japan than the US they should get there games before or at the same time as the US. I guess it's just that the US is a larger market but it still doesn't make a lick of sense.

Also it must suck when you are really looking forward to getting a game and you are the last country to get it, and even worse is if your country doesn't get it at all happens with a lot of RPG's and really ticks me off……*looks back at shining force disk 2 and 3*

Actually, Europe is a larger market than the US. But I think various issues of trnaslation and what-not means that European releases are normally last.

We get soke things earlier, though- fore example, the DS net browser and Wii Play on the Wii. However, whilst Wii Play is a good way to get a second remote, the internet browser ain't all it could be, so we feel more like guinea pigs than privileged on that one.

Sometimes the delay is not so bad, sometimes it is horrendous. No confirmed release date for FFIII yet, for example.

The UK and US have different translations? I thought it would be just the same as the US just in PAL but I guess the dialect is different enough to create its own translation.

FFDSIII is good but not great lack of save points makes it challenging if you don't level up and challenging usually isn't a word used to define a final fantasy.

No, not the UK, but Europe. You don't just release for the UK but the whole continent.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, not the UK, but Europe. You don't just release for the UK but the whole continent.

yeah that area seems like it would be the most pain in the ass area to realease stuff becuase you have english, french, dutch, german, Greek, Turkish, danish, swedish, italian, irish, Welsh, Gaelic, and few more all in that little area. I guess it makes sence why your last now that I look at it again.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The translations for Britain are different as well?

Oddly enough they do make changes sometimes; Age of Empires was changed so that Richard the Lionheart had the right name (instead of LionheartED, though I suppose if youy wanted to be properly accurate it should have been French) and quite a few are changed to English spellings.

But as I am sure you knew well anyway, the European games tend to be released multilingual, in-game, manual, or both.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Oddly enough they do make changes sometimes; Age of Empires was changed so that Richard the Lionheart had the right name (instead of LionheartED, though I suppose if youy wanted to be properly accurate it should have been French) and quite a few are changed to English spellings.

But as I am sure you knew well anyway, the European games tend to be released multilingual, in-game, manual, or both.

Yes, that I knew, I was wondering whether they would go through the trouble of changing from American to British English. Which would be slightly odd.

Also, I think it is usually limited to the major languages, like 5 or so.

Well, I think it's more of a case that they may as well make the shift, as they have to take the time to do the full translations elsewhere anyway, rather than "OMG! Must change spellings or no Brits will buy!"

And yes; if they did the rest I suspect we'd get the games five years late.

Ush, would you do a review for classic RPG like Fallout or Baldur`s Gate 2?

I can't believe I missed this.

Originally posted by Lana
Actually, you did say it was turn-based. And then you went on to call it turn-based several times more times.

And you do realize that in X-2, more than one character can attack at once, right? I regularly had situations where all my characters and an enemy were attacking together.

You are the one who is having a hard time understanding this, not any of us. Obviously, you DO need to be told what the difference between the ATB and a turn-based system is.

And seriously...if you want to argue about game mechanics, you'd be better off going and arguing against a brick wall. The brick wall wouldn't know anything and you may have a chance. But arguing something like that with someone that actually designs games? Yeah.

A turn-based system bases on turns. An Active Time Battle system does not, duhr. The only difference between the two is that they just look the same.

I'm stating facts. If you don't like it for some reason, tough luck. I'm arguing something that is right, and the person who happens to design games isn't getting what I've been saying up to this point, which is making him look bad.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Hahaha, 'never said it was turn based'... nice try to defy reality there... also your example doesn't make it look remotely turn-based, frankly, and it's also not true; if Party member A selects to cast a spell and party member B selects to attack afterwards, party member B will attack first. If he cats a spell and is quicker, he will also attack first.

Serious issue with spotting facts here. Your basic statement that commands executed after others will not be performed first is a lie. It happens all the time in X-2.

And yes, my example does make its system look exactly like a turn-based system. Here, I'll show you what I mean:

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o289/Cloud_XII/FFXG.jpg

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o289/Cloud_XII/FFX2G.jpg

Secondly, I was talking about when two characters are using the same attack. Not when one person uses "Attack", and the other person uses a technique that requires charge up time. This could be wrong, but I've never seen the opposite happen.

Those pics show nothing useful, and you are simply completely wrong about your example making it look turn based. And in any case you ARE wrong. You can select to attack second, and hit first. Again, happens rather a lot, if you bothered to pay attention to the game; interrupting enemy attacks with a faster hitting character is a very viable tactic in the system. Gee... how wrong do you want to be?

And now you have become so desperate, changing what you previously said because you got it so incredibly wrong the first time... really quite feeble. Fact of the matter is this- you called X-2 turn based, and you were wrong. Your statement that it was turn based was not even slightly ambivalent. You simpky said it was a 'turn-based game'. You even mentioned it in the same breath as FFX being turned based, which is true. You equated the two, and you cocked up. No matter how many times afterwards you try and directly tell us that you didn't imply it was turn based, it won't change what you said, which is still here in the thread for everyone to see. So not content with being wrong, you have gone on to make yourself a blatant liar.

Now grow up and stop trying to wriggle out of it, because everyone can see what an ass you made of yourself. Still trying to wriggle out of it after this long is simply pathetic.

I read your post just fine- there was simply nothing of any value or credit in it.