New Releases - 11/25

[kitsunebi]

Prince of Persia: Warrior Within - Official Strategy Guide  I guess there was some backlash about the darker aesthetic of this game compared to Sands of Time.  I wonder which game the movie took inspiration from (if either?)

[gobbins]

I'm pretty certain the 2010 movie was thematically based on the 2010 video game, Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands.

Thank you for the strategy guide, kitsunebi!

[kitsunebi]

I'm pretty certain the 2010 movie was thematically based on the 2010 video game, Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands.

Actually, now that I see that the movie's title is exactly the same as the game's (PoP: The Sands of Time), I suppose that makes sense.

I didn't pay it any attention when it came out - I have a pretty strict no-videogame-movies rule when it comes to my watching habits (I've never even watched the Wing Commander movie out of morbid curiosity, despite WC being one of my all-time favorite game series.)

[SlamMaster]

When I think 'Prince of Persia' I definitely think of Jake Gyllenhaal.

[gobbins]

Actually, now that I see that the movie's title is exactly the same as the game's (PoP: The Sands of Time), I suppose that makes sense.

Upon further research, I stand corrected. The 2010 movie was a loose adaptation of the 2003 Sands of Time game, but supposedly borrowed some things from the two follow up titles in that trilogy ("Warrior Within"  and "The Two Thrones") so your original comment was more accurate than mine.

It just so happens that a new video game released the same year, with a Prince that looked marginally similar to the films leading actor Jake Gyllenhaal, hence my confusion.

Not to be confused with the 2008 reboot game simply titled Prince of Persia...

This series is a mess, ha!

[bigkev]

KarlyPilkboys brings us PSW (UK) issues 86, 88, 89 and 90. PlayStation mag reading weekend anyone?   

     

Thank you kindly for the uploads. Much appreciated.

Skimming through Issue 88, I couldn't help but notice that the review for Rule of Rose had the game going for 25 pounds. It's unfathomable to think about now when you consider the game is one of the most expensive PS2 titles which now goes for prices ranging from amounts as high as $1000 to prices as "low" as $300.

[kitsunebi]

Skimming through Issue 88, I couldn't help but notice that the review for Rule of Rose had the game going for 25 pounds. It's unfathomable to think about now when you consider the game is one of the most expensive PS2 titles which now goes for prices ranging from amounts as high as $1000 to prices as "low" as $300.

Interesting.  I've never even heard of it.  But a quick look online shows it got pretty terrible reviews across the board, so I guess its value comes strictly from scarcity?  Crazy that someone would pay $1000 for a terrible game.  But I guess no one pays those prices to actually PLAY it.

[bigkev]

Skimming through Issue 88, I couldn't help but notice that the review for Rule of Rose had the game going for 25 pounds. It's unfathomable to think about now when you consider the game is one of the most expensive PS2 titles which now goes for prices ranging from amounts as high as $1000 to prices as "low" as $300.

Interesting.  I've never even heard of it.  But a quick look online shows it got pretty terrible reviews across the board, so I guess its value comes strictly from scarcity?  Crazy that someone would pay $1000 for a terrible game.  But I guess no one pays those prices to actually PLAY it.

I too could not justify spending a three-figure sum on a game, despite its quality or rarity. With Rule of Rose, I think it's one of those rare curiosity pieces that only the most obsessive of gaming collectors would purchase just so they can have it displayed on their shelf.

[IloveCats100]

Skimming through Issue 88, I couldn't help but notice that the review for Rule of Rose had the game going for 25 pounds. It's unfathomable to think about now when you consider the game is one of the most expensive PS2 titles which now goes for prices ranging from amounts as high as $1000 to prices as "low" as $300.

Interesting.  I've never even heard of it.  But a quick look online shows it got pretty terrible reviews across the board, so I guess its value comes strictly from scarcity?  Crazy that someone would pay $1000 for a terrible game.  But I guess no one pays those prices to actually PLAY it.

I too could not justify spending a three-figure sum on a game, despite its quality or rarity. With Rule of Rose, I think it's one of those rare curiosity pieces that only the most obsessive of gaming collectors would purchase just so they can have it displayed on their shelf.

Rule of Rose is quite popular with the games as literature critique crowd, I believe. It's got a story that has been hotly debated and examined over the years due to its psychological nature, touching on topics like gender and childhood trauma through metaphor and symbolism. It's apparently very intense and creepy! It's not my sort of thing, but there's been a lot of re-evaluation of games that were once lost in the shuffle of releases, so to speak! It's also by like a cadre of developers who have a very long history? I believe a lot of them worked on Earthbound, then on the Japan-only PS1 RPG moon, and some other obscure titles, so there's a subset of fanatics who follow the individual developer's works. One of them was in fact Toby Fox, creator of Undertale, who has said that hearing about Moon RPG on internet message boards growing up inspired his mega-hit!

I suppose even if a game is not critically reviewed, it still has some special attributes all its own, not just rarity behind it!