I stopped playing console games when I discovered sex, now I just play games.
Although the release schedule for console games hasn't been quite as unenventful as its PC counterparts, Q2 has been pretty quiet with the majority of top titles shelved to swamp the autumn setlist. Indeed, you'd usually expect a steady flow of quality retail games, but this has all but evaporated. While various disappointments …
well at least playing games into your 30's has given you some experience on consoles.
...maybe she appreciates your button bashing skills.
Try Y Y RT and then Back, it sends them over the edge every time and scores you a 10x combo and unlocks a secret mission.
Me too... then I got married had two kids and started again :)
Good to see a roundup for us occasional consolers, rather than focusing on high end PC gamers.
For me £2k is car money, not desktop money!
I hate to be that guy, but £2k is phenomenally expensive, even for a brand new extremely high spec gaming PC if you build it yourself.
£600 will do for a good gaming PC. I realise that's still a lot of money, but I'm posting in the interests of accuracy, not sanity. My current machine was about £1300 in total, but it'll last me 4-5 years unless I get the itch to be a bit childish and go spunk more cash on it.
The 1990's called... etc.
Still playing 2011 games
I am still playing catchup with my games, 2012 has not been as good as 2011.
Trying to finish not the last Assassins Creed game but the one before, one of my boys bought Skyrim but it doesn't excite me at all.
The most recent release I have enjoyed was Uncharted 3!!!!
Also I am fed up of Move knocking, it works incredibly well in FPSs, I will not buy a FPS on console without Move support now, pity there are only 2 decent Move supported FPSs, and only one has a decent multiplayer.
Re: Still playing 2011 games
fps on consoles is crap with controllers when you are used to mouse and keys. killzone 3 was loads of fun with the move. i also bought the sharp shooter rifle attachment. great fun!
Re: Citizen Kaned
I made Commander in Chief two weeks ago.
Now playing just for fun rather than concentrating on levelling.
I reckon about one third to one half of high level (top 5000) players uses Move.
We use slightly different techniques, and it is easier to shoot while sidestepping.
Wot, no Dark Souls?
Harsh but fair fantasy rpg, with a pretty unique take on online play.
I think everyone played that....
As a list of titles you might not have played, there's a bloody good reason for most of them (they're crap).
I highly recommend The Witcher 2 if you haven't got a PC with the grunt for it but do have a console though!
In fairness, Dark Souls was released on consoles last year, rather than Q2 2012.
Spec Ops was much better than it had any right to be. Ignore the "just another FPS" trailer, it has a surprisingly deep story and a superb ending. There's a multiplayer mode too, but meh, and importantly none of the game's achievements/trophies are tied to multiplayer, so you can ignore it altogether (like I did).
Are you guys allergic to giving a game less than 70%? This is another reason why I can't take you seriously on gaming (the Halo reviews aside...). You basically called several games on this list crap, then gave them 70%. And El Reg is hardly alone in doing this,
This is why I prefer the scoring of people like Angry Joe. Dude isn't afraid to mark your game down. If a game is average, it gets 50%, if it's great it gets 70%, and it has to be ball-bustingly brilliant to get 90% or above. Otherwise you can't differentiate between the scoring on the games, and you end up with a bunch of games with the same score that vary wildly in quality.
TL;DR - knock it off. Stop being afraid to give games crap scores if they're crap.
These are only a selection of the games I have played over the last few months. There were definite exclusions - some mentioned in the opening para - which would have scored below 70%.
We didn't want to give you a list of poor games - the idea is to point out some that you might like. While many of these still have their shortcomings, it would be harsh to drop them below the 70 mark, which isn't exactly a thrilling score anyway.
When you start getting into 60s and below, it generally says a game is pretty awful and it would be harsh to label these ten so unfairly. So yeah, while I have pointed negatives out with some, they still warrant a score that reflects their respective 'comme ci, comme ça' status. They might not all be exceptional, but none are a complete waste of time and money.
Then again, it is games, so it's all somewhat subjective anyway.
When you start getting into 60s and below, it generally says a game is pretty awful and it would be harsh to label these ten so unfairly
That's the point I would argue. 60% shouldn't mean "awful" to me. If all so-so games make it to 70% and above, it gets much harder to differentiate quality. It means there's a huge section of your percentage range that never gets used, if a truly dreadful title can still score, say, 50%.
It's all down to where you set the average point, IMO, and I would say that if you establish "average" at 50%, and make that clear to readers, then you can differentiate between "misses the mark", "average", "good but nothing amazing", "recommended", "excellent", etc with appropriate scores.
There are games I've thoroughly enjoyed that earn 70% on MC, and truly dreadful stuff that earns exactly the same mark*. I just think that too many reviewers hover around this upper scale. The perception within the gaming community (not the reviewer's fault by any means) is that anything below 7/10 is shit, and that really makes no sense to me. It certainly isn't that way with other media, such as films. (Jim Sterling probably makes this argument far better than I'm doing.)
*OK, OK, Metacritic arguments aside. I know a lot of reviews, especially for movie-licenced games, are *ahem* sponsored.
Take your point entirely, but the public also sees 50% as below average, so if we rated an average game 50%, there are plenty of people who see the score, think it's complete turd, then switch off.
In my school days anything below 60% was an F.
then it worked its way up with D (60-69%), C (70-79%), B (80-89%) and A... and the scores of gaming reviews are very similar in my opinion.
I think in general, these are our rough guidelines FYI..
If a game scores less than 25% it means it is faulty and shouldn't have been released.
25-35% waste of time, pretty unplayable
40-50% Not much cop, unlikely to enjoy
55-65% Playable, but don't have high expectations
70-75% Average game, run of the mill
80% Good game
85% Great game
90% Tremendous game!
95% Seminal work that excels in almost every area
100% Acme of gaming in the moment.
Makes sense, no?
100% Contains Nathan Drake
Spec Ops? Spiderman? Ridge Racer? The Olympics game? How are these "Games you may have missed?" The title led me to believe this was going to be a roundup of some interesting indie games, not just a rundown of a load of AAA titles.
Agreed on Spec Ops. If you missed that, you weren't paying attention. Definitely one I want to grab for PC. In a world made of brown dust-filled shooters, I want the one with the bitching story and the Bruce Boxleitner character.
On his defense
Starhawk looks interesting. The rest are meh, especially the ones that look like "AAA" titles (Spiderman! Olympics!).
Oh well, back to Assassin's Creed then.
We missed all these because they are all very average...
Except The Witcher 2.
The Witcher 2 - can someone tell me: I've got The Witcher on PC, and The Witcher 2 for the 360. I'm not a huge fan of gaming on the PC at the moment - will I lose a lot by not playing 1 before I take on 2?
The Witcher 2 continues the story, so it might be a bit jarring if you haven't played the first one. Then again, the first one was pretty jarring, since Geralt's lost his memory.
The controls are very different. Combat in the first one involves pausing, clicking on your target and timing your attacks. The second one takes the more conventional "press X to swing sword" approach.
That all being said, The Witcher 2 looks significantly better on PC. Assuming you have one that can handle it.
...wish I did.
Much appreciated. The main reason I'm not gaming a lot on the PC is down to having a 'far from top-end' rig.
I played The Amazing Spiderman 3d and everything looked fine. I would actually have to say it looked better than the movie 3d. The technology in the movie theater was the same on my TV. I love passive 3d and that is the main reason why I bought the LG LM670T.