dumpster

Just bought it. You can turn the screams off in the audio options. What were they thinking. Proper fun game though.

No. Stuff is priced at what the market will pay. Many people think development costs and manufacture have a correlation but they don't. Bob Mortimer, Garth Marenghi, Stephen King and Pinch of Nom all have books out for Xmas this year, they are hardbacks and all the same price. In six months they will become paperbacks and be cheaper. Does Garth Marenghi get paid the same as Stephen King? Does a hardback book cost twice the price to print as a softback? Does it cost more to go to the cinema to see The Batman than to see an indie film? Does it cost more to make a Blu-ray than a DVD? In a world where Grand Theft Auto cost millions to make you might feel justified in saying it's worth £70. But the game has been selling steadily for years and now has online play with a monthly subscription. Games also sell in larger numbers than ever before. They are raking it in. Activision made billions in profits, EA the same. It defies all logic that a brand new release 4K BluRay of a movie that cost 200 million to make sells for £15 and yet somehow games are £70. Once, when you had cartridges, manufacturing costs, shops, distribution, Nintendo's licensing agreement, packaging, shipping, and memory chip prices it was acceptable. But now you have a direct purchase from the console manufacturer, no-one else takes a cut. There's no physical product. the pricing is completely unjustifiable. But, like when the 360 launched with £60 games, all you have to do is not buy them. They will soon sink back to £50 because they always do.

Before I go to sleep... It's long been said that video gaming is as popular as the cinema or whatever by comparing customer spend. But there's always been the caveat that a cinema ticket was a fiver and a game was £45, So as gaming became more mainstream,.Lara Croft on the cover of The Face, Wipeout attracting the nightclub crowd, there was still that discrepancy that a game was nine times the price of a cinema ticket so it wasn't the fair comparison. But it is 2022 now, soon to be 2023 and we can compare where we were with where we are. Firstly, products are priced at what the market will bear. Manufacturing costs, developer costs play a part, sure they do, but gaming today really is mass market. A game can easily sell a million copies worldwide. Triple A titles can sell tens of millions. Divide the dev costs by quantity sold and it can be pennies. Likewise there's no box these days. No manuals. No disk duplication. No shops. No product recalls. All replaced by the cost of a server and an online store. No retailer to take a 30% margin. No shipping. No distributer. Now it's just you and Sony dealing direct. Costs slashed. Then you have the world of DLC, extra packs, subscriptions, online worlds, in app purchases, all money generating, extra revenue. Half the time this content was in the game all along, hidden behind a paywall. I've bought Resident Evil 2 and 3 remakes 2 times each now and when I bought them the second time I paid extra to unlock the weapons pack I'd earned on PS4 because I didn't want to start over. So much DLC used to be in the game as standard. Compare Resident evil 8 with Resident Evil 4. RE8 has me paying £16 for a third person view, whilst speed runners complete the game in 90 minutes. RE4 had Mercenaries, Operation Ada, Seperate Ways, a whole menu of extras after you have completed the 14 hour main game. so why are games £70? It's because people have shown they will pay it. Simple as that. Video gaming is mass market. If James Cameron can make Titanic for 180 million quid and sell it on DVD for £14.99 then reduce it to £9.99 until it end up in a garage forecourt basket for £2.99 while HMV sell a collector's pack with T Shirt, Mug, photos, a fake heart of the ocean necklace and a photo of Billy Zane cuddling a sealion for £49 there's simply no reason for GTA 6 to be £70. Fortnite proves you can release an online game for free and smash all sales records.

Games are not worth £70. Time to download some more PS2 games.

Soft and Quiet felt like (yet another) movie where they confused "horror" (a genre of film) with "horrible" (something that's upsetting or hard to watch), and I don't think these two words are interchaneable. You can't criticise the acting, the direction, the film-making... It's competent in all areas, but it's not enjoyable as horror because everyone involved has made a film that is horrible. Thinking of horror films I've enjoyed they tend to have a story, characters, a beginning, a middle and and end. Sometimes you get humour mixed with the horror, sometimes there's gore. Often you have a bad guy character, a Micheal Myers or Freddy Krueger. A good twist at the end perhaps. Or someone dies in an especially gruesome way and you watch through your fingers but you get the thrill of a horror film. Soft and Quiet has all these things. Yet there's something about the story that's missing. This film, and a number of others recently, seem to step away from the story arc .and just focus on showing you something really unpleasant. S+Q was a really unpleasant film but all the pieces were in the right places. The setup was good , the pie was a great moment and everything up to the store built really well. But from there it just seemed to be shoving a horrible situation at you, forcing you to sit through a deeply unpleasant series of events. Somehow the point to the film wasn't about telling a horror story, it was about making something extremely unpleasant to sit through. Torturing the audience. I was very impressed by the structure, the setup, the film-making, the acting, it's technically brilliant. But I wouldn't want to see it again and it feels like I was the one being abused. Horror films may be scary and horrible (it's in the name) but they recently seem to have moved on to be Jackass Style "can you watch this film without vomiting" viewer challenges, and I miss the story arc. This film could be half an hour longer and do something at the end but they'd shown you all the horrible things by then and it ends.

I really liked the second half of SOTN, very difficult but I addresses a criticism I have with a lot of games. Take Resident Evil games for example. You start off with a handgun. There are loads of other weapons but stuff like the Magnum only appears when you're three quarters of the way through. Metroid games give you a powerful character with great weapons but all you get to do with that character is the escape at the end. It's nice to have the new game plus modes which are a comparatively recent addition but back in SOTN PS1 era you didn't have much opportunity to explore further with your powered up character. The reverse castle seemed to be completely optional to me as well which was great. You can decide personally whether you're playing to 100% or 200% and enjoy running riot with your powered up weapons if you want to.

Yes I believe the Castlevania collection tells you which enemy drops which card so you can identify the gaps and farm the ones you need. But having said that one of the cards (Black something) drops from one single enemy in one room, 1% of the time. Meanwhile you'll have 1000 meats in your inventory. It's surely not intentional to make it so hard. The cards are meant to be integral to the game yet you can finish the whole thing and only have about 4 cards drop. I've used Cheat Engine to raise the luck value to maximum and it makes very little difference ; you get way more drops but the cards don't seem to drop more often. For me the ideal mechanics would be to have the drops linked to the map coverage. Make sure every player gets a fair smattering of cards to mess with .

Circle of the Moon is brilliant, very much underrated at the time (probably because on the GBA launch you couldn't see the screen). But it does seem exceptionally stingy in dropping the DDS cards. If you get the opportunity I like to recommend the romhack which puts them in the hidden rooms as pickups. https://www.romhacking.net/hacks/4725/ Or just cheat in the retail version. Choose a dss card combo that you have, press the trigger button to activate the card combo then IMMEDIATELY go into the menu and change to another card combo you don't already have. This gets you every card combo to play with at any time. The DSS system is one of the best things about the game and it's crazy how few of these cards it gives you in regular play.

Sonic was always overrated. There have been the odd good game in the list but Sonic was never the assurance of quality that Mario or Bubsy the Bobcat was.

I would save the Vita to the last. TxK is such a brilliant game. I couldn't live in a world where is doesn't exist any more.

The electric company made an announcement on the news. There's no more electricity. It's going off at midnight tonight. That's it. No more leccy! So you now face a predicament. Luckily you have charged up every item you own, but once that battery goes the item is a useless brick. But it's not all bad news, you have a 20,000Mah power brick and you charged that as well. So which handhelds will you play immediately, which will you savour? What system will you want to play the most, knowing that once it's gone, it's gone?

No kids can afford that.

As stated earlier, the size of the screen is everything. I have a collection of 3D Blurays I picked up cheap and my Sony TV with active 3D glasses is just rubbish. The TV is decent enough. But the 3D is ghosty, flickery, the glasses are uncomfortable and you get a weird flickering effect if you look out of the window. The same film on the Oculus Quest 2 using BigScreen looks fantastic. Ridge Racer on PS3 dropped from 60fps to 30fps and below when played in 3d. And again, the 55" screen isnt big enough to give you that big sense of 3D so it only really served to make a great game darker and jankier. But the PSP emulator for Oculus Quest let's you play Ridge Racers 2 in real VR and in 3D and it's brilliant (probably one of my favourite VR games and it's not even designed for VR). But Quest 2 also gives you the chance to play not in VR but on a big 3D screen and this works well too. You need that size of screen otherwise, as someone said above, you're looking at something that's designed to fill your field of vision, but on a 55" screen it becomes a 3D window and the space in front and behind becomes a tunnel instead of depth.

Metropolis Street White Dog Shit

Outrun Poo