KirbyTheVampire

I just don't get it.

This game could be great, but the fact that that the focus is always on stuff like "Look how many zombies are on screen!" makes me uneasy.

If I had to pick three, it would probably be:

Red Dead Redemption 2 (assuming the micro-transactions that are apparently going to be in this game aren't too bad)
Detroit: Become Human
Shadow of the Colossus.

There are other games that I'm more or less equally excited for, though, such as Vampyr, God of War, Dark Souls Remastered, and Monster Hunter World.

@FullbringIchigo I suppose that's true. It seems like games get resold a little too much, but I understand that game development is a business, first and foremost.

Does a game that came out 4 years ago really need a remaster? I guess it's fine, it just seems a little soon. Games don't age THAT quickly.

@naruball I agree. While some retro-looking indies like Stardew Valley can be fantastic, I usually prefer indies like this one. I would rather not have another retro-looking 2D platformer.

I might give it a try. I know I would love these games if I didn't suck at them.

@Fath I wasn't saying dogs do that for me. I just meant that owning a pet is way more meaningful than watching a movie or playing a video game IMO.

But yes, while I do think humans have a much more complex emotional and mental spectrum than animals, they do think and feel much more than people give them credit for.

@Neolit Okay then? I'm not saying they're all that way, but if you, for example, go watch the new Avengers movie or play Call of Duty, chances are you're not experiencing something that will make you question life and the universe itself or anything like that. You're just being entertained.

@naruball Not exactly IMO. Games and movies are just mindless entertainment, not something you form a bond with.

Either way, I'm not trying to speak for everyone. I don't care what others do in this situation. I just prefer to have an actual living thing for a pet. If someone feels differently, more power to them.

If you can't look after a regular dog properly, then sure, this is a solid idea. However, this is ultimately just a lifeless husk in the shape of a dog. It could never be anywhere close to the real thing. I prefer to look at my dog and see actual life and thought, not a machine.

I wonder if they'll ever give us a poor man's Splatoon 3?

I hope there are good sidequests as well. Spider-Man games haven't had a good track record in that area. Granted, that isn't generally the focus of the games, but IMO, if you have sidequests in your game, you should do at least some of them right.

Probably Mario Odyssey. Beyond that, I really don't know. Maybe some Battlefield 1 or Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Kinda up in the air for me.

I never expected to see Snake Pass on any GOTY list, let alone at #2, lol.

@tatsumi I suppose so. It just seems like it could potentially mean that the game is shallow or something, but I've never really played any of Kojima's games and am not really in the know about what games he's made recently, so I wouldn't really know.

Is that really a good thing, though? I'm sure it'll be a good game, but sometimes it takes time to create a masterpiece. To use a major cliche, Rome wasn't built in a day.

Still planning on buying this game.

@JoeBlogs I don't know, everything about him just rubs me the wrong way, especially since so many people love him for some reason. He's such a generic character in so many ways IMO.

But yeah, DC in general can be cringe city a lot of the time.

@get2sammyb That is quite a bit better, yes.

I actually picked up Deux Ex, thought about buying it, and eventually put it back just last week, so this is great.

I'll definitely try the Batman game too, even though he is one of the most boring and cringy superheroes in existence IMO.

I finally beat the story in Mario Odyssey, so I'll probably see what the post-game content is all about.

Other than that, I'm not sure. Probably won't do much gaming in general, since I'll be seeing family a lot for the next few days.

@Bliquid Still, I think someone asking to get a limb cut off should go through therapy and whatnot, rather than have their wish granted. But yeah, it's interesting to think about.

@Ralizah Fair enough. It's still a comparison I see get brought up though, which is why I mentioned it, but yeah, I don't think that's a feeling most people are born with, if any.

@Ralizah @Bliquid I wasn't saying it's totally the same, because cutting off a limb is definitely more extreme. I just meant that it's similar in the sense that it's people who feel their physical bodies are wrong in some way, and thus get surgery to change it, but people's responses to someone asking to get a limb cut off can vary from "He/she is mentally ill" to "He's just not happy with his body, just like a transgender person", although the latter opinion is more rare, of course.

Either way, I wasn't trying to offend people or say that all body modifications are on the same scale or anything. I just think it's an interesting topic.

@Bliquid What would you think of someone thinking they should have been born an amputee and asking to get a limb cut off? It's a pretty similar thing to being transgender, when you think about it. I'm not saying anything, I just find it an interesting discussion and enjoy hearing where various people draw that line.

@get2sammyb That's probably true. It's the same people who made Life is Strange, correct? If so, it should be pretty decent, at least.

Next year does have a lot of promise. I just wish I knew how good some of these games will actually be, like Vampyr. It has potential to either be absolutely amazing, or really bad and cringy.

I voted for Nate. John Marston is sort of boring and a stereotypical good guy. He just kind of walks around and runs errands for people and generally doesn't have much of a discernible personality beyond being a cool cowboy guy.

Nate didn't really have much of a personality either, but they fleshed him out quite a bit in later games, and at least he wasn't just monotone and boring to listen to.

@JAMes-BroWWWn Xbox is back on top! Woooo!

Sony and Nintendo better watch out. They're about to be dethroned.

Well, I would hope it's pretty long. The monsters don't exactly die in a few seconds, lol.

Bloodborne, please. Not super likely, but it would be nice.

@shonenjump86 The moon one. It's looking close to the end.

I'll probably try to finish the story in Mario Odyssey. Not sure how much longer it is, but it seems like it'll be close to wrapping up at this point.

Make single player great again.

It's a bit of a tie between TLOU2 and Andromeda. The Death Stranding one was pretty solid, and I'm sure there's a good amount of artistic merit to the game, but right now everything about it just looks like an LSD trip.

@Tasuki Yeah, that is true as well. I personally couldn't stand to play the same series over and over, especially ones as stagnant as Madden or FIFA, but I guess it's just like books or movies or music, where people often only like a few things, or maybe even just one.

@Tasuki That's probably a big part of it as well, yeah, especially for people like that. It's easier for people like us to buy games we've never tried before, but I do see how someone who sticks to those types of games wouldn't feel sure about buying anything else.

@Th3solution Yeah, it's a bummer how so many great games go unnoticed by the masses. I think gamers like us are quite a bit more rare than even we tend to think. Most just buy what's popular, and don't look beyond that. Nothing wrong with that, it just sucks for the games that (IMO) are a heck of a lot more interesting than the CODs and the FIFAs of the world.

@JLPick Not all of those are the best examples IMO. Even before Breath of the Wild completely changed the Zelda series, it tended to be at least somewhat different with each game, and although Mario has been a little samey over the Wii and Wii U life-cycles, it's changed quite a bit over the years, especially when you consider all the spin-off titles, but I do see your point. I just think it's probably different for people like us who buy a wide variety of games compared to people who just buy a couple games to play with their friends. Still though, even with the franchises that don't tend to innovate all that much, we still aren't buying them every single year for the most part. It seems strange that people can buy the same thing every year and love it, even if they don't buy many other games, but oh well. To each his own.

@JoeBlogs Definitely.

@Tasuki I suppose. I mainly just don't get why it sells so incredibly well with every installment, but I guess for the more casual people who only buy maybe a couple games a year, it's a worthy investment. It just seems like people would get tired of the same formula year after year, but I guess not.

@Derpie1 Not really, lol. It sold 10 million in 2017. It's on track to already surpass the Wii U by the end of the fiscal year. Pretty darn solid for a console that has a relatively small library due to its young age, not to mention the disaster that was the Wii U.

I don't get why CoD sells so well. I wonder how long it'll be before people finally get tired of it. I certainly am.

@NathanUC He meant in the Beta, not the full game. I don't think anyone really knows how hard the full game will be, but I'm not concerned about that.

@wiiware Keep in mind that some of your quests will be spent foraging in the wild, so you won't just be hunting the monster the whole time. Still, 50 minutes is more than enough time in the majority of cases.

@Wazeddie22 I think the limit is mostly there to prevent noobs from slowly chipping away at the monsters health, rather than actually fighting it and using skill.

@Wazeddie22 I think the time limit in the full game is like 50 minutes or an hour or something.

I loved it. It's not for everyone, though. I think it's kind of a shame how the Beta was set up, too, because people who think the game is simple are clearly just not informed on how deep the series is. With the lowered difficulty and the fact that you already have access to a decent amount of items and weapons and such, it does seem rather easy and simple.

Monster Hunter in general has way deeper combat and crafting and everything than probably any game any of you have ever played, though. When you have such a beloved series that's based almost entirely around combat, the last thing it will be is simple. Many people are turned off by the games due to them being too "hardcore" for them.

@Jorjk Fair enough. I'm used to the UI because I played Tri, but it is pretty confusing at first. It generally does click with most people after a while, though.

As for the difficulty, this Beta really was just meant to give people a taste of the game. It is much more easy than the full game, and thus the more technical aspects of hunting like traps, poisoned weapons, foraging for extra gear to craft etc basically weren't necessary at all. It just came down to the basic weapon combat, and due to the lowered difficulty and the fact that we were facing low level monsters, using big elaborate combos, timing your attacks, utilizing the environment to your advantage etc wasn't really present either.

And I think the fact that the monsters don't react to every swing just comes down to the fact that combat lasts much longer than it does in most other games, so they can't just be flinching every 2 seconds or it wouldn't be a fight at all.

Ultimately though, I'm not the best one to sell you on the game, because I've only played Tri, and pretty casually at that. I just know that the full game will be much more interesting than the Beta.

@dark_knightmare2

The monsters are sponges because this game is supposed to be hard. This isn't a game where you can just run in and slash them to bits immediately.

While the feedback doesn't exactly jump out at you, it's definitely there. And besides, little numbers shoot out showing how much damage you did, so that should be enough of an indicator, regardless.

The time limit is probably there to force people to actually play the game and not slowly chip away at the monsters. You can craft many consumables in the wild, and thus people would be able to slowly grind away at it until you finally killed it. With the time limit, you have to actually fight the monster and be skilled.

Monsters have many visible cues that show how damaged they are. If they start limping, stumbling, slobbering, have visibly damaged body-parts all over them etc, then you'll know that you've got them on the ropes.

The graphics aren't the best ever, but they're very serviceable IMO, and I don't really know why you're gaming on PlayStation if graphics are that important to you. There are better platforms out there for that, like PC.

@dryrain This is more like a game of chess than a hack and slash. Not for everyone.

@Jorjk Like I said to the other guy, this is sort of like a game of chess, so the combat's not gonna be super fast and flashy. You have to be very methodical in your approach, at least when you start fighting harder monsters. Not every game needs to be a super flashy game where you just charge in spinning all over the place and wreck the monsters in 5 seconds.

I'm not really sure what you're referring to with monsters not reacting to attacks realistically, but this is a game where you're hunting monsters and people are swinging around weapons that weigh hundreds of pounds. I don't think realism is really the point of the game.

I didn't find the UI bad, but I guess it just comes down to getting used to it. There is a lot going on in Monster Hunter games, so there is definitely a lot of text on the screen.

The story mode in Tri explained everything pretty well, so I imagine it'll be the same thing with World. Either way, you can always just Google your questions.

The Beta has a lowered difficulty, and these were low level monsters, so things will get a lot more interesting in the full game.