MFTWrecks

Just discovered that Outriders on PS+ Premium includes the Worldslayers expansion, which is not advertised. So I accidentally discovered that and I am having a real fun time playing that.

Just having some dumb fun til Cyberpunk drops Phantom Liberty.

@Cashews Agreed. TMNT (and Spiderverse) were much better than Mario.

Where TMNT was a clear love letter to the franchise, Mario felt like someone read a wiki article on Super Mario and smashed stuff together.

If they want me to remain subbed to Extra, they better improve the quality (or volume) of the games offered by 35% or they can F right off with that. That is ABSURD.

I never played Armored Core, but knowing its structure is akin to Daemon X Machina, which I regretted buying, I'm just not really interested in the overall structure and gameplay loop.

If anything, maybe I'll buy it a year or 2 down the line if general consensus remains so positive. I feel as though a lot of the hype is simply for a new From Software game.

I've only got Cyberpunk and Spidey to end the year. Then really... Not anything confirmed. (Maybe I'll sneak Everspace 2 in there.)

None of that early 2024 stuff interests me in the slightest.

If this (somehow) had native support to be a second screen for games that support split screen, that would be a super compelling reason to have one.

That looks incredible.

Modern Ubisoft is absolutely, exhaustively terrible.

@Northern_munkey No, I get the point you're trying to make. But let's not act like the good they do couldn't be improved 10 fold if they were pro-union, and/or paid their thousands of employees better wages. The "good" done to and through the economy by way of all that capital would arguably have much a bigger impact. And they could STILL afford to give millions to the charities of their choosing.

@Constable_What Maybe all at once. But plenty give little by little to churches every week, charities at the holidays, etc.

Looks surprisingly decent from what little was shown. COD and Battlefield need a solid competitor, imo. Def worth keeping my eye on it.

@Northern_munkey I mean, sure. But $12.8 million was 0.711% of their operating cash the year they did that (2018).

That's like the average American giving away roughly $450 (based on median household income in that same year). That's... not a lot.

Especially since we also know about all the ***** behind the scenes that was going on during that time at Activision/Blizzard.

I'm grinding trophies for the Remnant 2 platinum as often as I can find time for.

@MikeOrator Sports games are so so ready for a live service overhaul.

Release the core game, allow for all sorts of single and multiplayer modes. And then sell battle passes that give players options for things like custom stadium/uniform options. It'd keep players engaged long term. Make it about creating an actual, thriving sports team for yourself.

Have stats and records wipe and update a few times annually, to mimic seasons and off seasons.

That ***** would sell truck loads, no gambling or anything required.

I am historically a defendant of live service. It can be done well and to great affect for the consumer. But they are getting outright awful.

The issue, like any capitalist endeavor these days, is that it gets ruined by people/companies who have no understanding of what makes it work and when it makes sense to implement.

I am a long-time Fortnite player. Day 1 on PS4. I bought the first battle pass (and numerous since). It was a model I was okay embracing as it was a) a free title b) a multiplayer title and c) (this is the big one) the BP itself rewarded you for engaging with it by returning to you more than enough currency to continue to engage with it. Had Fortnite been stingy with the rewards, I almost assuredly never would have stayed as engaged as I did over the years.

What a LOT of big companies get wrong is exactly what you're alluding to with this criticism. Something like Fortnite wasn't necessarily incomplete or broken (your personal interest in the game aside). It was a title that knew exactly what it offered. It then used its model to invest in itself and grow to become something much more. Something few could have imagined on launch. And it continues to surprise.

But more and more companies see it as a way to just fix broken stuff later, drip feed content, and dip their hands into consumers' wallets forever and that's about it. Traditional single player titles should not have battle passes. Hell, many multiplayer titles (that includes co-op) shouldn't have them. It needs to make sense for the gameplay and the type of engagement the player base desires.

What's odd to me is that there are some big heavy hitters in the industry that SHOULD just go full F2P + battle pass but don't. And it's bizarre to me. For instance, I truly believe COD should have been flipped on its head years ago. Forget Warzone chasing the Battle Royale trend, COD's multiplayer core should have long ago been released as a PLATFORM for COD content, free of charge. Give away the multiplayer suite in its entirety and release new maps every season, new modes, etc. And if there's still a market for single player? Sell THOSE storyline as add-ons in a sort of soap operatic nature of growing storylines. Just flip the table and deliver stories the way they used to deliver map packs. (And sell cosmetics on top it all to fund the endeavor.) It would keep players even more engaged, and allow them to create a singular space instead of having countless teams with overlapping storylines, gameplay systems, and ***** clogging the brand's identity. How any COD players drops cash on cosmetics that, up until this year, disappeared after a year is beyond me. I have ***** from the first BP in Fortnite that I can display as a badge of honor. That cool COD skin you paid for a year or 2 ago or earned? Just gone forever once the next one comes out. That's bonkers to me.

I think the same could be said for something like Madden or FIFA (or whatever it's called nowadays) where the core competitive nature and seasonal updates would marry so perfectly with the real world sport the titles are mimicking.

It's wild to me that instead, what we get is good, solid games that should never have gone NEAR the live service model "embracing" it and then completely ***** it beyond belief (see: Diablo, Hot Wheels, NBA2K, countless others). THOSE games are the problem and until more keep failing, we won't see it stop.

This would have made more sense back on the PS3, both because the show was waaaay more popular then, but also because it was clearly developed for it.

I don't understand why they took what seems to be a decent overall concept (near-future zero gravity space combat) and tied it to such absolute cringe details/design language/theming.

Yes. I want to play a zero-g sci-fi FPS.

No. I absolutely do not want anything to do with a cringe ass Sonic cosplayer as a "character."

I was very into this when it was first revealed, so I'm intrigued by what they've been up to since then. Hopefully it can deliver a good-feeling single player open world experience.

I've gotta wait to see gameplay. I always liked Tian Quest, in theory, but it's old in the tooth by now.

Hopefully they bring a modern sensibility to the action design.

Looks like a sci-fi Just Cause. Color me very very intrigued.

@OCEANBREATHESSALTY Ok, so it's a new engine to... have the same basic gameplay systems? How can it be "totally different" when the outcome itself is supposed to be, more or less, 95% the exact same? That's what I'm asking.

College football is not "totally different" than NFL football. So how much work is possibly going into actual gameplay changes?

I'm sure it's all the money they expect to rake in from RDR, surely.

As much Remnant 2 as I can get time for.

It helps me know when the controller button was properly (or improperly) registered as pressed. And it helps to lemme know when I've successfully gone into the safe mode. Def not turning it off.

(I admit I don't play football games, but I AM a football fan...)

Legitimately: what "gameplay system" do they need to build to make this game work? Stadium creation? Team uniform editing?

Nothing on the field, surely, right? The game is the same as Madden outside some literal rules tweaks. How can they not turn this out pretty damn swiftly (all things considered)?

Is this implying they won't be compatible without use of the transceiver? I'd pick a pair up if they work with my Android phone more easily than my Airpods do.

Game is fantastic. They deserve the success. Good for them.

@Khayl You linked to your own article from a week ago outlining the changes and were still wrong about the facts of the matter. Sorry you were held accountable to the barest of minimums for your job.

@Bionic-Spencer You really showed 'em!

The patch that nerfed everyone was like 7 days ago. Not "weeks back." I know we move faster than ever nowadays but holy hell, y'all. Get some perspective. Or facts.

Immortals was awesome. I liked it way more than BotW. And better than most of Ubisoft's IPs.

Heaven forbid Ubisoft has a robust, diverse portfolio.

Part of why I bought into MW2 was because of their promises to support the game so much, take 2 years between the next so focus would be better, yadda yadda yadda.

They tricked me one last time. Series is dead to me.

@Fiendish-Beaver Seriously. I couldn't tell you the story of Demon's Souls if you put a gun to my head and that's considered an all timer in the genre. Since when was a cohesive story EVER stressed in the subgenre??

I mean... You say all that about the story being a negative due to random generation of levels... But I'd argue story is never very well communicated or clarified in Souls-likes (at least the ones I've played). Part of their allure is being obtuse. At least in Remnant, the reasons for it are tied to the story.

I never felt, not once, during playthroughs of Ashen, Demon's Souls, or Elden Ring, that I objectively needed story clarification for anything whatsoever.

To hold that against this sort of game seems preeeetty absurd to me.

Kinda giving off some Kingdoms of Amalur vibes both with its art and the brief glimpses at gameplay.

Which is funny since KoA was supposed to be an MMO, as was its planned sequel.

For free? I'll download this and give it a go, for sure.

@Northern_munkey I'm happy for you. But objectively speaking, they slowed the pace of the game further, undercut people's ability to progress, and nerfed a good number of what were considered fun builds.

That's not really up for discussion.

@ORO_ERICIUS I did stop. And I don't intend to come back until S2 at a minimum.

Also, about difficulty, this is ALSO Blizzard's doing. Diablo 3 had a near-limitless Nightmare level (equivalent to World Tier) system via the Greater Rift endgame activity. You could theoretically play forever based on its design. And people did. People played for ages.

The fact is, BLIZZARD made 4 too easy. BLIZZARD cut down on endgame, loot, and borked the endgame design. This patch does NOTHING to address any of that, hence players are rightfully pissed.

Know what they could have done, if they were worried about players being too powerful? Added a World Tier (or two)! Give strong players a place to GO and things TO DO. Instead, they cut us all off at the knees and want us to thank them for it.

@Northern_munkey @Triumph741 @ORO_ERICIUS

Y'all are tossing out some broad oversimplifications. It's okay if you're cool with it all. I agree if it STARTED this way, it'd be more palatable. But the fact is, it didn't start this way. The game was released, sold, and reviewed based on a flow and cadence, one that was already deemed slow by many.

There are issues to address, but going after the few fun builds that were discovered and undercutting everyone's ability to progress is just asinine. Especially when they didn't address things players have been begging for since beta.

The changes effect everyone. If only a few were implemented to slowly right the ship, then it could have been palatable. But, in classic Blizzard fashion, they took the nerfhammer to the game. If rolled out over 2-3 seasons, tweaking so players could adjust and bring builds up to new status quos, it would have been better. (The old adage of boiling frogs comes to mind.) Instead, they upset damn near everyone who put a lot of time into the game.

I mean...

Item drops have been slowed, as drops from Elites were nerfed.

The best Helltide chests were nerfed, making loot chasing harder. Cinders in Helltides were nerfed, making loot chase worse.

They gated World Tiers (but reverting this), so you couldn't get XP to progress as quickly fighting higher level foes.

They nerfed XP rewards from those harder enemies by a significant amount, ruining XP rewards for even trying to push, slowing progress to a slower crawl.

The net effect is slowing down gameplay. You take longer to engage lower level enemies, get less XP for doing so, and get killed more easily while doing it, costing you time and resources to fix your gear and complete your objective.

Heck, they made it take 66% longer to exit a dungeon! Why??

Those are all universal truths. You may THINK they "don't effect you" but they very much do/will. You may play similarly, but effectiveness has, undoubtably, been cut back. As will progress through the game itself.

Prior to the patch it was estimated a level obtained during endgame (roughly level 70+) should take 2-3 hours (aiming for fighting enemies +3 levels above you to optimize XP), depending on activity. I imagine that was increased by at least an hour per level, based on my limited post-patch play time.

My 86 melee rogue went from crushing Nightmare Dungeons and enemies +5-6 levels, to struggling to complete when the enemies were at my level. I could trade blows with the Butcher and beat him 9/10 times. Post-patch, he 2-shotted me before he finished saying his name.

That's a fundamental screw up, whether they intend it to be that hard or not, based on how DRASTIC it feels. It's not an understatement to say this patch is a shock to the system. This is dunking us all in ice water when we were begging them to heat things up.

Somebody else mentioned it, but Blizzard has a tendency to nerf, nerf, nerf instead of slowly tweaking, nerfing, buffing, etc. They see something "out of place" and they smash that thing (whatever it is) into the Earth's core from on high (see also: HotS, Overwatch). In this case, they made EVERYONE feel less viable. It's exhausting.

Why would I bother to rebuild myself (as I crest 115 hours in the game) if there's ALWAYS the risk of them undercutting me so severely at any moment? ESPECIALLY when their systems are expensive and not simple to respec/rebuild? It's obnoxious and tone deaf across the board.

Is it fair to say it's coming to PS5 if, at least according to the PS Store, there's no PS5 version?

@pharos_haven Guy with a dog.

What's the thinking behind breaking down entire patch notes for an upgraded version of a 8 year old game, but y'all don't look at patches for a big seller like Diablo 4 that released 2 months-ish ago (and is waaay more controversial based on your other article on said patch)?

Is the engagement on Witcher 3 articles that much higher?

This was an overt effort to slow down the player from completing content too quickly.

They designed an arpg with more of an end than their last game (paragon maxing out, gear maxes, and really only glyphs to enhance at the very end). This is a base issue for a live service title.

So instead of, say, adding a world tier (or 2) or enhancing systems, they rolled back the power of the players. That'll make it harder for them to progress.

They also scaled back and hard capped enemy levels. This will mean general XP gains from, say, traversing the world will be far lower than before. Again, slowing the player from attaining new levels and reaching the end.

They made helltide loot harder to obtain by nerfing XP AND cinder drops. Meaning the good gear drops for maxed builds will be harder to obtain.

They changed "bugs" where elites could drop more than one item upon death. Again, slowing down loot drops and obtainment.

They painted themselves into a corner of bad design decisions and at a moment in time their player base (one of the largest, if not THE largest in the series' history based on sales numbers alone) was BEGGING them to buff characters and systems to inject more fun into proceedings, they nerfed everything into the ground, effectively pulling the rug out from everyone already playing the game, souring them on it, and surely doing themselves no favors with general word of mouth. I mean, what current player whose build just got annihilated (like my melee rogue with 115 hours under his belt) is going to go recommend the game to their friends NOW when Blizzard has shown their hand and their design intent?

It is a fundamentally slower, less enjoyable game today than it was yesterday. I have no hope for the immediate future. Blizzard can ***** off. They tricked me for the last time. D4 is the last of their games I'll ever buy/play. They're terrible at designing for fun.

I honestly don't see how Microsoft ever thought making CoD exclusive would be profitable for them. It's sooo much easier for people to stop playing a game than it is to buy hardware dedicated to that singular device. They would have seen a HUGE dip in sales and player numbers had they ever done so. And it would have made making back their investment that much harder for them. It never made business sense to me. At all.

I think Sony's concerns about bugs and all that... That's actually fair. Look at how Microsoft has handled ITS OWN IPS on its own platforms. They're not exactly consistently stellar. I think they had every right in the world to be concerned that Microsoft, barely able to manage its own content natively, would ever bother to dedicate necessary resources to make cross-platform titles a priority.

Microsoft is generally pretty ***** bad at the game making part of being a videogame maker. They think of all this ***** as content and services and that's rightfully quite scary to Sony, who still has a lot invested in games as a medium/experience/art form.

@Jamesblob I understand your general point, but nothing Microsoft is doing is FORCING you to purchase a subscription. At all.

Making games available via subscription is NOT the same as ONLY making them available via that subscription. You can buy any title available in Game Pass independently of the subscription.

If you want to make a point, don't lie about it.

I'm not a big NFS player, but isn't it the Underground series that's most beloved? Why not remake those 2 bangers (even I played those)?

Edit: Just a thought. If the version being remade is NOT the 2012 edition, maaaaaybe don't link to your content on that 2012 edition? Super confusing.

Mom, I want Street Fighter.

We have Street Fighter at home.

...

@Fiendish-Beaver I always loved Microsoft's argument of "We tried to put GamePass on PlayStation but they didn't wantnit there."

Like yeah, no *****. But were you asking them to out PS+ on Xbox?! Saying getting their mits into/onto the PS platform is a sign of good intentions is laughable if MSFT weren't also willing to let the competition get their mits on THEIR platform.

Is Microsoft out here begging to let everyone play nice together? Doesn't seem that way. They think "Xbox on everything" is fair and goodwill, but anyone on their platforms is bad. Which... makes no sense.

Finally got me sign up for Extra, so yeah. I'm finally stoked enough to give it a whirl.

Edit: Just saw the result. Oh, you poor people about to be disappointed by Farcry 6... just don't bother. Replay an old one you pikey already own. It'll be better. I promise.

• a Farcry fan who platinumed them all from 3-5, but couldn't get past the first major region of 6 without being bored outta his skull

They're some of the worst designed Spidey suits I've ever seen. Literally no loss whatsoever.

And people wonder why Sony is investing in GaaS. This. This is why.

And no, I don't think anyone can argue that either are outright bad games.