PixlBit

We've been over this, but you consider the gameplay of ME to be mediocre because you've always approached it as a shooter. I've always approached it as an RPG and have highly enjoyed the tactical options available to me. But it's far from perfect. Starting with ME 2 and going into ME 3, BioWare just doesn't have great level design for the shooting they want to implement. ME 2 was just like the first Gears game in the sense that you could always tell when a fight was going to start because of all the convenient waist-high cover points that would show up. ME 2 also was basically a game of "run forward, shoot, run forward, shoot, cutscene", and ME 3 seems to be the same thing.

My problems with ME 3 so far have been narrative related, but you're spot on about the framerate. Even the cutscenes have jarring, janky animation and surprisingly poor lip syncing. But I'll give the game props for giving me a little more RPG mechanic. So far, the powers seem weak, but I'm hoping as I level they reach the fabled craziness of the first game. Still bummed about the lack of inventory and the way its managed. The idea of only being able to switch out weapons at very certain points is just absurd to me.

As a HUGE Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan, this game is hitting all the right notes for me. I'm not a big supporter of Suda, but this one looks great.

Your character stands out like a sore thumb in that outfit. It worked in the setting for the other games, but I expected an updated look as time moves forward.

In the end, we were both right. I said this wasn't a God of War game, and it isn't. You said it seemed like nothing but QTEs and it is. It worked for me, but for the reasons it does I can easily see how you would hate it.

It's frustrating, because I think if this game was 50% interactive cutscenes and 50% full-on action game ala Devil May Cry or Onimusha this could be a 5 star game for me. I'd love a sequel, but I'll be shocked if this thing sells over 100,000 copies in the U.S.

We have a basic outline, and we email back and forth at least a week before the show. We're getting a better feel for how we flow together, and I think it really showed in this episode.

You're right, Todd Howard does wax poetic about exploring worlds. And I'd probably be fine with that if the games were all about talking and exploring. I loved Myst back in the day, and I often wished that I could just explore that world in real time. But the Bethesda games have a strong focus on combat, and they just aren't up to snuff. Like I said in the podcast, if Skyrim had combat on par with Condemned I'd be all over it. As it is, I'll be waiting for a price drop.

Mike, thanks for the kind words. This podcast has been a learning experience for sure, and we've had our snafus and technical difficulties. This was the first episode that really feels like the show I want to produce (though we still need to get some more humor and shenanigans in there), and I'm stoked that you enjoyed it.

Condemned 2 totally has a different feel, and I just can't get into it, even though I've popped it in numerous times. It's just like you said: very supernatural out of nowhere, lifeless areas, and a protagonist so far removed from the first game that you may as well have a totally new character. Combat is still amazing, though.

What did you think of the POP 2008 ending? So many people hated it, but it made perfect sense to me, given the Prince's feelings. It kills me that there doesn't seem to be a sequel coming...it was a gorgeous game with some of the best characters this generation.

Sigh. I wish I liked Bethesda's games more. They seem to create some amazing quests, but they're stuck behind such bland characters and janky combat that I just can't get pulled in. I finally traded in Oblivion, a game that I bought in 2006 and attempted to play about 4 times since. I own Fallout 3, and I've started that game 3 times and lose interest after getting to Megaton. I know, there's something wrong with me.

I agree with a lot of what you say, Nick. I think you and I are curators of games, and not having an entire gaming experience on that disc is going to cause problems later on. I purposely bought the disc version of the GTA IV DLC episodes. I also bought a second copy of Dragon Age: Origins (the Ultimate Edition) so I'd have a hard copy of all that DLC. While I can't say I won't buy games that have online passes (too many games I love come with them), I agree that it's a bad practice.

I like the way that Mass Effect 2 did it. The Cerberus Network gave players new weapons and missions, many of which were free. This was content that got dished out over time, and it felt like you were rewarded for buying new. The content wasn't vital to the experience, though, so if you didn't have the pass you didn't miss out on anything major.

I've heard more than one person talk about the fact that consumers will pass over lower priced games because of a perceived lack of value. But as a retailer, I never found this to be the case. The Spec Ops series on PSX was a HUGE seller, and it came out at 9.99. Katamari Damacy on the PS2 got a lot of attention because it was so different, but the 19.99 price point helped a lot too. The same goes for 2K Sports' last ESPN NFL game, and this generation we have Deadly Premonition as a great example. Yes, in the case of DP it had a lot of buzz around enthusiast sites, but at 20 bucks it was an easy impulse purchase.

I've said for a long time that we need some games to come out at lower prices, and I think publishers can usually tell which games need to hit that price point. There are plenty of games this generation that I've wanted to purchase, but I know that the game isn't quite good enough for that 60 bucks. Some examples would be Wet, Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard, Splatterhouse, and Majin and the Forsaken Kingdom. In the case of Splatterhouse and Matt Hazard, I picked them up for a song, and had a good time with them.

Usually, these "B" grade games are new IPs, or relaunches of old IPs that a lot of people don't remember. These are perfect for lower price points, but you need marketing to back it up. It might just be enough to get people to stop and take a look, and hopefully that means the game is profitable, leading to a sequel that's worth a higher price.

Hmm, now that you mention it, they did the same thing with Yakuza 3. But what was wrong with Vanquish? Bad timing?