>> ^jiyanibi:
I'd certainly appreciate a posh British accent over an American one, as I'm guessing Mr Gyllenhall will have (and the character in the latest PoP game had...ugh).
Agreed, baby steps here on the accent. Though, it is the same as was in the first of the new games.

I'm very glad it doesn't look like they took ANY character cues from Emo Within or Two Whiners.

>> ^EDD:
I'm especially appalled by the horrible out-of-place posh British accent on Farah (presuming they retain the original name for the princess).


I'd certainly appreciate a posh British accent over an American one, as I'm guessing Mr Gyllenhall will have (and the character in the latest PoP game had...ugh).

As for the girl's name, apparently they aren't going with the game name of Farah. Just checked the imdb page and her name is Tamina. And for those curious (ie. those who think the actress is fine as hell), the actress is Gemma Arterton, or as I delightfully discovered was the red-head in the last Bond movie. *drools*

Thank you Thank you Thank you!

In reply to this comment by RedSky:
Damn you! Was just about to hit submit!

Anyway, here's a better embed:

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=100361501

So I'm guessing he played a lot of Prince of Persia?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Yahtzee likes shitty games.


More that Yahtzee likes single player (focused) games with uncommon (in current gen games) premises/mechanics, e.g. prince of persia sands of time. Too bad he doesn't like JRPG's, because that's the focus of the genre.

Funny, I guess, but I won't upvote because it's mostly fiction. The Daily Show is excellent because their comedy is usually grounded in reality, but just to be clear, this isn't --

Alexander marched through all regions of Afghanistan (which of course wasn't a single political entity at the time) with clear success. He even founded Kandahar (one of many cities called Alexandria, at the time).

Gengis Khan utterly destroyed the empire that occupied most of Afghanistan and Persia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Khwarezmia

And heck, not to mention that the US and the Northern Alliance toppled the Taliban with relative ease.

Of course, one could argue how much any of these empires/regimes was actually "in control" of Afghanistan, but that's true of imperial control of most regions.

So really, it's unmerited to call Afghanistan "unconquerable". It might be OK to call it "Ungovernable", but that's true of many regions of the world.

The video game industry is basically at a low at the moment, because there truly isn't anything new coming out.

My problem is that they seem to have lost their creativity and imagination. In the past however many years, the "Big Name" companies have had one idea and milked the shit out of it to make a crapton of money that they're only spending a fraction of to make sequels of the same game wrapped in a new pretty box.

Halo, Gears of War, Prince of Persia, Metal Gear, Hell, even Final Fantasy is starting to go downhill.
All of these titles have at least 3 games already in the franchise, or are soon going to, and each one basically had a steady decline in how good it was.

Whoever previously mentioned that the companies don't want to take risks basically hit the nail on the head. Very few are releasing something new, and even fewer look like they'd be fun.
The way I've always thought about it, a video game is like a book, or movie, just interactive.

A perfect example of this is from the Bioware games, The KOTOR series and Mass Effect are fantastic in the way they play out, because it's the exact same as a story, there's progression, there's conversation, there's reason to do what you're doing.

Take a game like Halo: Combat evolved, look at it, it was fantastic because as the storyline progressed, you learned about what happened, you found out who the covenant was and what their purpose was for finding the halo, and you learned the secret of the ring itself, That's a good progression.

Then you look at the second one.. The only thing new about it was the fact that there were now giant gorillas that wanted to eat your face, everything else was the same, nothing real new in the way of story or gameplay except you got slightly more overpowered, and the third is basically the same thing. I can't blame Bungie for Halo 3, there was never supposed to BE a halo 3, but MS pulled their funds before they could finish the final level which was supposed to close off the series and they were forced to make it.

My solution to this is to actually find people who write, authors who are willing to at least pitch ideas for games, and a studio that's willing to listen. If there's a company out there that could do that, the independent market could be almost abolished because the companies are hiring them on for ideas.

However, the "Reverend" Is right on one point, until we stop buying these rehashed games with a new number on the end, there won't BE anything new to buy. The companies will go for more of the same because people keep buying it.

Wikipedia says:

"Psychonauts, Call of Duty 4, The Orange Box, Painkiller, Saints Row 2, No More Heroes, H.A.W.X, Prince of Persia, Gears of War 2 and Fallout 3 are some of the few games that have actually received a favorable review (He also gave Grand Theft Auto IV a rather favourable review, but then later nulled the review, citing a lack of good games to compare to at the time). The Valve Corporation game Portal is the only game he has ever reviewed in a completely positive manner and is rated as one of his top 5 favorite games of all time (the other four being Silent Hill 2, Spider-Man 2, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, and Fantasy World Dizzy..."

That was INSANE!

I never was a big fan of the Splinter Cell series, mainly because of the relatively slow paced action, but this game looks so much quicker, and packed full of awesomeness.

Jack Bauer meets the Prince of Persia. Can't wait.

I still say they should have gone with the actual Prince of Persia...

http://kotaku.com/368276/persian-prince-favored-for-prince-of-persia-role

You gotta stop letting your cat play Prince of Persia

Your video, Zero Punctuation - Prince of Persia Retropective, has made it into your personal Highest Rated Videos listing. Congratulations on a job well done. For you contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

It is highly improbable that this imperialist war of 1914–16 will be transformed into a national war, because the class that represents progress is the proletariat, which, objectively, is striving to transform this war into civil war against the bourgeoisie; and also because the strength of both coalitions is almost equally balanced, while international finance capital has everywhere created a reactionary bourgeoisie. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that such a transformation is impossible: if the European proletariat were to remain impotent for another twenty years; if the present war were to end in victories similar to those achieved by Napoleon, in the subjugation of a number of virile national states; if imperialism outside of Europe (primarily American and Japanese) were to remain in power for another twenty years without a transition to socialism, say, as a result of a Japanese-American war, then a great national war in Europe would be possible. This means that Europe would be thrown back for several decades. This is improbable. But it is not impossible, for to picture world history as advancing smoothly and steadily without sometimes taking gigantic strides backward is undialectical, unscientific and theoretically wrong.

Further, national wars waged by colonial, and semi-colonial countries are not only possible but inevitable in the epoch of imperialism. The colonies and semi-colonies (China, Turkey, Persia) have a population of nearly one billion, i.e., more than half the population of the earth. In these countries the movements for national liberation are either very strong already or are growing and maturing. Every war is a continuation of politics by other means. The national liberation politics of the colonies will inevitably be continued by national wars of the colonies against imperialism. Such wars may lead to an imperialist war between the present “Great” imperialist Powers or they may not; that depends on many circumstances.

For example: England and France were engaged in a seven years war for colonies, i.e., they waged an imperialist war (which is as possible on the basis of slavery, or of primitive capitalism, as on the basis of highly developed modern capitalism). France was defeated and lost part of her colonies. Several years later the North American States started a war for national liberation against England alone. Out of enmity towards England, i.e., in conformity with their own imperialist interests, France and Spain, which still held parts of what are now the United States, concluded friendly treaties with the states that had risen against England. The French forces together with the American defeated the English. Here we have a war for national liberation in which imperialist rivalry is a contributory element of no great importance, which is the opposite of what we have in the war of 1914–16 (in which the national element in the Austro-Serbian war is of no great importance compared with the all determining imperialist rivalry). This shows how absurd it would be to employ the term imperialism in a stereotyped fashion by deducing from it that national wars are “impossible.” A war for national liberation waged, for example, by an alliance of Persia, India and China against certain imperialist Powers is quite possible and probable, for it follows logically from the national liberation movements now going on in those countries. Whether such a war will be transformed into an imperialist war among the present imperialist Powers will depend on a great many concrete circumstances, and it would be ridiculous to guarantee that these circumstances will arise.

Thirdly, national wars must not be regarded as impossible in the epoch of imperialism even in Europe. The “epoch of imperialism” made the present war an imperialist war; it inevitably engenders (until the advent of socialism) new imperialist war; it transformed the policies of the present Great Powers into thoroughly imperialist policies. But this “epoch” by no means precludes the possibility of national wars, waged, for example, by small (let us assume, annexed or nationally oppressed) states against the imperialist Powers, any more than it precludes the possibility of big national movements in Eastern Europe. With regard to Austria, for example, Junius shows sound judgment in taking into account not only the “economic,” but also the peculiar political situation, in noting Austria’s “inherent lack of vitality” and admitting that “the Hapsburg monarchy is not a political organisation of a bourgeois state, but only a loosely knit syndicate of several cliques of social parasites,” that “historically, the liquidation of Austria-Hungary is merely the continuation of the disintegration of Turkey and at the same time a demand of the historical process of development.” The situation is no better in certain Balkan states and in Russia. And in the event of the “Great Powers” becoming extremely exhausted in the present war, or in the event of a victorious revolution in Russia, national wars, even victorious ones, are quite possible. On the one hand, intervention by the imperialist powers is not possible under all circumstances. On the other hand, when people argue haphazardly that a war waged by a small state against a giant state is hopeless, we must say that a hopeless war is war nevertheless, and, moreover, certain events within the “giant” states—for example, the beginning of a revolution—may transform a “hopeless” war into a very “hopeful” one.

The fact that the postulate that “there can be no more national wars” is obviously fallacious in theory is not the only reason why we have dealt with this fallacy at length. It would be a very deplorable thing, of course, if the “Lefts” began to be careless in their treatment of Marxian theory, considering that the Third International can be established only on the basis of Marxism, unvulgarised Marxism. But this fallacy is also very harmful in a practical political sense; it gives rise to the stupid propaganda for “disarmament,” as if no other war but reactionary wars are possible; it is the cause of the still more stupid and downright reactionary indifference towards national movements. Such indifference becomes chauvinism when members of “Great” European nations, i.e., nations which oppress a mass of small and colonial peoples, declare with a learned air that “there can be no more national wars!” National wars against the imperialist Powers are not only possible and probable, they are inevitable, they are progressive and revolutionary, although, of course, what is needed for their success is either the combined efforts of an enormous number of the inhabitants of the oppressed countries (hundreds of millions in the example we have taken of India and China), or a particularly favourable combination of circumstances in the international situation (for example, when the intervention of the imperialist Powers is paralysed by exhaustion, by war, by their mutual antagonisms, etc.), or a simultaneous uprising of the proletariat of one of the Great Powers against the bourgeoisie (this latter case stands first in order from the standpoint of what is desirable and advantageous for the victory of the proletariat).

We must state, however, that it would be unfair to accuse Junius of being indifferent to national movements. When enumerating the sins of the Social-Democratic Parliamentary group, he does at least mention their silence in the matter of the execution of a native leader in the Cameroons for “treason” (evidently for an attempt at insurrection in connection with the war); and in another place he emphasises (for the special benefit of Messrs. Legien, Lensch and similar scoundrels who call themselves “Social-Democrats”) that colonial nations are also nations. He declares very definitely: “Socialism recognises for every people the right to independence and freedom, the right to be masters of their own destiny.... International socialism recognises the right of free, independent, equal nations, but only socialism can create such nations, only socialism can establish the right of nations to self-determination. This slogan of socialism,” justly observes the author, “like all its other slogans, serves, not to justify the existing order of things, but as a guide post, as a stimulus to the revolutionary, reconstructive, active policy of the proletariat.” (p. 77-78) Consequently, it would be a profound mistake to suppose that all the Left German Social-Democrats have stooped to the narrow-mindedness and distortion of Marxism advocated by certain Dutch and Polish Social-Democrats, who repudiate self-determination of nations even under socialism. However, we shall deal with the special Dutch and Polish sources of this mistake elsewhere.

Another fallacious argument advanced by Junius is in connection with the question of defence of the fatherland. This is a cardinal political question during an imperialist war. Junius has strengthened us in our conviction that our Party has indicated the only correct approach to this question: the proletariat is opposed to defence of the fatherland in this imperialist war because of its predatory, slave-owning, reactionary character, because it is possible and necessary to oppose to it (and to strive to convert it into) civil war for socialism. Junius, however, while brilliantly exposing the imperialist character of the present war as distinct from a national war, falls into the very strange error of trying to drag a national programme into the present non-national war. It sounds almost incredible, but it is true.

The official Social-Democrats, both of the Legien and of the Kautsky shade, in their servility to the bourgeoisie, who have been making the most noise about foreign “invasion” in order to deceive the masses of the people as to the imperialist character of the war, have been particularly assiduous in repeating this “invasion” argument. Kautsky, who now assures naive and credulous people (incidentally, through the mouth of “Spectator,” a member of the Russian Organization Committee) that he joined the opposition at the end of 1914, continues to use this “argument”! To refute it, Junius quotes extremely instructive examples from history, which prove that “invasion and class struggle are not contradictory in bourgeois history, as the official legend has it, but that one is the means and the expression of the other.” For example, the Bourbons in France invoked foreign invaders against the Jacobins; the bourgeoisie in 1871 invoked foreign invaders against the Commune. In his Civil War in France, Marx wrote:

“The highest heroic effort of which old society is still capable is national war; and this is now proved to be a mere governmental humbug, intended to defer the struggle of the classes, and to be thrown aside as soon as that class struggle bursts out in civil war.”[7]

>> ^Jerykk:
Some of you are missing the point. He's not insulting games that have stories. He's insulting games that focus on story or cinematic values at the expense of gameplay (which is a growing trend). The fact is that games are getting dumber and less challenging by the second. The platforming in Assassin's Creed consisted of holding down one button. The platforming, puzzles and combat in the new Prince of Persia were all dumbed down and streamlined compared to the games in the Sands of Time trilogy. Genres with steep learning curves have been or are being phased out. Western RPGs and survival horror games are now more like action games. Shooters now have regenerating health, third-person cover systems, aim assist, trajectory indicators, invincible squadmates, etc.
The sad reality is that developers are focusing on accessibility over depth, challenge and longevity. Games are becoming increasingly automated and decreasingly interactive for the sake of "cinematic immersion." Anyone who's been playing games for a while (particularly on the PC) can see the downward spiral that gaming has taken.



To paraphrase: Gears of War

Some of you are missing the point. He's not insulting games that have stories. He's insulting games that focus on story or cinematic values at the expense of gameplay (which is a growing trend). The fact is that games are getting dumber and less challenging by the second. The platforming in Assassin's Creed consisted of holding down one button. The platforming, puzzles and combat in the new Prince of Persia were all dumbed down and streamlined compared to the games in the Sands of Time trilogy. Genres with steep learning curves have been or are being phased out. Western RPGs and survival horror games are now more like action games. Shooters now have regenerating health, third-person cover systems, aim assist, trajectory indicators, invincible squadmates, etc.

The sad reality is that developers are focusing on accessibility over depth, challenge and longevity. Games are becoming increasingly automated and decreasingly interactive for the sake of "cinematic immersion." Anyone who's been playing games for a while (particularly on the PC) can see the downward spiral that gaming has taken.