NoxAeturnus

@Nakatomi_Uk Yes! Bring back Skies of Arcadia!

Is that cart pulling a horse?

Seriously though, I can’t imagine what it is right now. After Witcher 3 I wouldn’t have guessed Cyberpunk 2077. My best guess is a Cyberpunk sequel or a new IP, and if it’s a new IP I’m guessing it’ll be something a little wild.

I think the difficulty of souls games (and Bloodborne) is way overplayed. The games aren't so much difficult as they are strict. There's much less wiggle room for errors. Whether or not you get frustrated depends a lot on your mindset.

My best advice if you die is, make your second run your best run. For example, I tend to see death as an opportunity. If I make my way through the level and earn 10K souls/echoes, and then I die, now it's DOUBLE OR NOTHING, because I get to go back through the level collecting that 10K again, and if I do it without dying I can recover my original 10K on top of that. If I lose the gamble, I still have to go back through the level, and I'm still going to get my original 10K back when I do that. All I've lost is time. And the combat is just so fun for me that I don't really care about repeating things. My mindset is that I don't have those echoes until they're spent, I only have the potential to have them, so it never feels like a loss if they disappear on me.

@Fight_Teza_Fight 9.75/10 for the conclusion. I'm deducting a quarter point for the missed opportunity: "half-baked Alaska."

Aaaaaand... pass.

I hate action rpg systems with AI companions. Always feels like the game is playing itself. Or like I should be playing an MMO with real people rather than a shabby imitation.

Not for me.

This makes me want to get the game. Ancient Egypt is fascinating.

Worthless letter from senator is worthless. ESRB is not a government entity. Why would they conduct or fund research about loot boxes? Unless there’s suddenly real regulation, they’re under no obligation to do anything. Even if they did factor it into their ratings, for example by making all loot box games M because they’re intended for adults, it wouldn’t do much to sales. Most of these games are already M, and the children whose parents allow them access aren’t suddenly going to stop playing these games.

So every time this game gets an update, it’ll be another monstrous download? Or it’ll be at least 2GB, every single time and they’ll stagger the update releases. What a mess. I’m waiting for it to be stable before taking the plunge.

@Yowza They claimed that the day one patch was because they basically had to redownload the whole game to update it. If that's true though, will every patch for this game require the same ludicrously large download?

I'll wait for this game to be patched enough to be stable before jumping on board.

@get2sammyb That's pretty much what I was getting at. If they stop making consoles, they could go 3rd party, go after Steam on PC with a better XBox store and drop some multiplat releases on consoles for everyone else. But yeah, I agree, overall this rumor is so unlikely as to be nonsensical.

It does seem unlikely, but honestly, I can't say it wouldn't make sense. They have similar philosophies when it comes to the gaming market. If MS was going to get out of making console hardware, they could do worse than acquiring EA.

@Tasuki Yes. And it was terrible then too. Actually the whole Son of Dracula was pretty terrible. Just because something is classic, and influences other (sometimes better) works in its genre, doesn't mean it stands the test of time or that it's objectively good.

Edit: Also, it can be clever in its earliest usage and then be overused and cliche later. Vampire fiction loves the "clever" name Alucard. Ugh.

Makoto because Alucard’s name is dumb and overused even if he’s a cool character. Ooo Dracula backwards, so clever...lame. Like naming a black dog Blackie. Terrible.

How many examples are there of games with great stories that haven’t done well? And I mean great stories, not stories that are great FOR A VIDEO GAME. Two different things. I think this “good for a video game” attitude is part of the problem. If it’s a great story regardless of the medium, it will find an audience.

@3Above It's an interesting comparison between Vita and Switch, and I think the total cost of the Vita shouldn't be taken too lightly. Switch has cross-play built in at $350, while Vita required you to buy an expensive handheld and an expensive console to get best use of the feature. The proprietary memory was a lot more expensive as well. The Vita was Switch before Switch, but the total cost of making that a reality was way higher than what Nintendo is offering. But you're right, we digress. The console wars are profitable. I'm not sure there's a double standard for Nintendo. There were certainly plenty of Nintendoom articles throughout the last years of the Wii, and the criticism of the Wii-U started when it was announced, never ended, and that system certainly wasn't purchased by buyers simply for having the Nintendo brand slapped on it. It's harder to criticize success. Switch is feature-lite for sure, but it's SELLING. It's not that the criticisms of it don't matter, it's that they don't matter yet. They could certainly matter for sustained momentum, which is where Nintendo has always struggled with their consoles. But again, I think that these missing features aren't as important as they seem. If Switch sales go off a cliff, I won't be looking back and saying "If only it had voice chat!" It'll likely be because there wasn't enough software. The Wii had massive software droughts towards the end, the Wii-U couldn't rub two months together with a decent release schedule. Right now Switch is killing it because it's got the games, and gamers are willing to overlook things if the games keep coming. It's the same with cross-play on PS4, Sony keeps avoiding talking about it, "but look at all the games coming to PS4! GoW, Death Stranding, etc..." Just keep the games coming. It's a winning situation for everyone no matter what system or systems they play on if the games keep coming, and right now Sony and Nintendo are both pumping out hits.

@3Above 100% agree that they're spinning their marketing that way because they don't have a choice. I don't think it's giving them a pass to recognize the brilliance of that strategy. It's clearly working for now. What'll be interesting to see is if they're using it to buy time until they can develop the infrastructure for a real online (including voice chat), or if they decide it isn't important to the system's core design and never address the issue. Either way I think it'll be a success. It's already proven it's a success without decent online. One thing's for sure, Sony squandered the opportunity they had with the Vita.

@Biotechzilla This computer analogy is getting far off track. You're having difficulty recognizing that a niche market might exist for a product you personally aren't interested in, or that the lack of a feature you personally think is important might not matter to users in a niche market. I don't know what you want from me. I'm not trying to sell you a Switch. The discussion was about why there's so much coverage of the console, I offered reasons why that might be the case (feels like an underdog resurging after years of disappointment, offers a unique experience). The conversation turned to a lacking feature on Switch, and again I offered reasons why the system might be selling despite the lack (focus on local, aiming at niche market not mainstream gamer). If you don't like those reasons, that's not my problem.

I enjoy both PS4 and Switch for what they are. I can't play my PS4 while I'm waiting in the Dr's office, or for my car to be fixed. I don't play online with friends on Switch. My PS4 is limited to one screen and the number of controllers I have at a party, but I love its single player games and online when I'm home alone. My Switch is limited only by the number of my friends who bring theirs over when they visit; we've had some hilarious fun at family and friends get togethers, but the graphics just don't compare to my PS4. Never have I felt the lack of voicechat on the system was holding me back from enjoying it. They're different markets. They play differently. They fulfill different needs. I have need of both and I'm happy they can coexist.

@Biotechzilla My point is, where's the "or else?" Lacking this feature, what will happen? Or else what? It won't sell? It's already selling. What you mean is, they must include this feature or "I won't buy it." The nice thing is, you don't have to. There's a lovely piece of hardware in the market that already meets your needs. It's called a PS4, and it's brilliant, and it has well implemented online features and voice chat. (Also, I gave two decent examples of who might buy a laptop with no network capabilities.)

@3Above Totally agree that Nintendo is not above criticism. I just think a lack of decent voice chat isn't as important as you're making it out to be. Nowhere near the level of wi-fi. Based on the sales it obviously isn't a dealbreaker for people. No amount of parity of system features or software will tear the hardcore away from PS4. Sony owns that market right now. What Nintendo is doing is using their unique selling point to carve out their own niche that is portable and local-multiplayer focused. They're banking on that physical social experience (it's in all of their marketing materials), which is core to the system's ideology and design. That means I generally don't need a headset on my Switch because when I play with friends we're in the same room. Having non-competing interests means there's a solid reason to own both a PS4 and Switch, because they both offer unique experiences. On the flipside, the Xbox is offering largely the same experience as the PS4, with far less of the great software, which is why it continues to flounder. It has no identity.

Using your laptop analogy, it would be like if a laptop company created a laptop without wi-fi then marketed it to writers as a distraction free machine. Or if they marketed the same machine to companies with high security concerns that only need machines that work locally because active wi-fi would be a security risk. It's a niche.

@Biotechzilla I'm wearing shoes that do not have laces right now. That's what slip-ons are. There can exist products in the same space that do not all have the same features. I don't think voice chat is as integral a feature to a console as a sole is to a shoe. I agree that we expect video game developers to create hardware and software. Nintendo is doing exactly that. The core message of Switch is not online functionality. If that's an important feature for you, the system is clearly lacking, and I get that. They're not above criticism. If they had that feature more people would be happy. But to say they need it or else? I think that's an overreaction. The sales speak for themselves. Even lacking these features that are standard on other consoles, plenty of people are willing to buy into the hardware and are enjoying the software.

@naruball PS3 floundered out of the gate, but by the time PS4 arrived it had done quite well for itself. PS3 to PS4 is not even a comparison with Wii-U to Switch. PS3 struggled out of the gate, then Sony righted the ship. Wii-U was dead in the water for at least three years (longer really). Its lifetime sales are well below 20 million. Outlets were running article after article about how Nintendo should get out of the hardware business... then Switch. Even with hiccups Sony has been wildly successful since PS2, there’s a strong expectation of success there. On the other hand, Nintendo’s success has a comeback kid feel to it, a rise-of-the-underdog narrative. Of course people are excited. People love that kind of story.

@3Above Again, expectations. When has Nintendo ever delivered solid online or voice chat? Never. Criticism is certainly warranted, but it’s not a critical feature for Nintendo because it never has been. If Sony or MS screwed up that badly it would be big news because they’d be backpedaling from how great their current setups are, and a large majority of their users use that feature daily because it’s been a critical feature on those systems for years. I get what you’re saying, that Switch is being mentioned a lot, and in places where it’s not really relevant to the news being given, but isn’t that what we’re doing right now too?

@thedevilsjester However you have fun with a game is up to you, I just think it’s a shame that you would pass on a game solely based on an out of game achievment list. If trophies were removed from any game, the game itself would remain completely unchanged. There are a lot of brilliant games out there, and I wouldn’t want to miss one because of a feature that is not even part of the game. To me that would feel like skipping going to see a movie I’m excited about because the movie theater sells bad popcorn. But hey, if that’s how you make your fun, you do you.

@3Above Nah, it's cool to be that guy. My take on it is that the comparative gains for PS4 aren't as impressive. It did 17.5 million last year, 20 million isn't a huge increase, and Sony is already the market leader. Great sales are expected, it's not really news after years of prolonged success.

Nintendo pulling out 10 million in sales is about triple what the Wii-U did the year before, and threatens the Wii-U's lifetime sales within the first year (or shortly after). It's a flashier headline and it's big (and successful) news for Mario and company after years of prolonged failure.

@thedevilsjester This seems like an overreaction. Trophies are not necessary to play a game. Do you only buy games to earn trophies? I don't understand.

Never liked trophies. I always feel like they're telling me how to have fun. The digital badge gimmick is past its prime. If a game is good, I'll make excuses to play it in different ways and make my own fun.

You know what’s holding God of War back? Kratos.

I think it’s a cool idea to take the franchise in a new direction and to explore other mythologies, but they should have left Kratos in Greece where he belongs.

Give us other “gods” of war. Different people, different stories.

Smartest thing Assassin’s Creed ever did was tying their franchise concept to a design (out of game) and organization (in game) rather than to the face of a headlining character.

Tl;dr: Ditch Kratos and make God of War a franchise with diverse characters and stories across a wide range of mythologies.

I’m looking forward to passing on legends of this game’s probable existence and possible announcement to my children, who will pass it along to their children, who may one day see its confirmed release date.

This game ate so much of my time this year. It was my goty for sure.

I've so far managed to temper my excitement by reminding myself that it might be years away...but could it be surprisingly sooner? Curse you hope!

@AnimeGamerFan It's the opposite for me. It's not that I'm burned out on souls. I have an insatiable hunger for more souls (or blood echoes). But this doesn't look like it's going to scratch that itch. It might still be good, but I think it's trying too hard to be souls and that's ultimately going to hurt how it's perceived and received, especially by souls fans who are burned out on so-called "Souls-likes". Seriously, I see a game get compared to souls now and I cringe.

I too like anime, but Code Vein is a "wait for reviews and maybe buy later" for me at this point. Maybe by the time it releases they'll change my mind. I'm certainly keeping an eye on it either way.

It looks nice, but it’s still missing the point of Souls. I stand by what I said before: Souls games are great because of their brilliant level design, deep lore, and skill-based combat. This is focused way too heavily on the combat engine, which is still meh, without anything exciting to show for the other two. Nice style, weak substance.

Comparisons to souls always make me cringe now. Too many "Souls-like" games misunderstand the heart of that series. This seems like another one of those.

I don't care if it's Bloodborne 2. It'll probably be gold even if it's something new. Remember when Demons Souls was exclusive so they made Dark Souls to go multi-platform? I was kind of hoping they'd do something similar with Bloodborne. If that game was on my Switch I would never stop playing it. But hey, whatever they release is fine by me, and I'll be happy with a PS4 release regardless.

EA has clearly passed the point of consumer tolerance. They’re going to need to do some serious damage control or...oh wait, UFC’s doing the same thing? Huh. Weird.

But seriously, petitions are rarely successful, and this one reads too ranty to be a good one. Should have been short and simple. Enough signatures though and it could beat the odds and hurt EA’s partnership. Really though, who else is big enough, with enough money to buy the licensing for Star Wars? No one who will do a much better job.

I think there's something to be said for a short reveal-release cycle. Sometimes the hype train gets out of hand. Look at No Man's Sky. The reveal didn't really overpromise, but then subsequent showings, interviews, and game shows did. The expectations for that game could never have matched its reality and I think a lot of that is due to the long wait for it.

I mean really though, it kind of depends on the game. Some games benefit from a long period to build hype. Others do not. I'm not sure there's a handy chart somewhere that breaks down which is which. A lot of times I think developers and publishers are just making educated guesses based on previous similar games, then getting lucky (or unlucky) with the timing of their announcements.

@kyleforrester87 Yes. This. Thank you for repeating that here. And thank you to @fath for the original post.

Should have been called GT:Emotional Rollercoaster. I've never been so excited for a game, then suddenly so disappointed, then suddenly so excited again.

It's a simple equation for me really: Hours of fun per dollar of expense. Subscription models tend to have a bad ratio, so I don't buy them.

It seems like this is an inevitable move for EA, and I expect other big publishers will eventually follow suit.

Tough act to follow, but they're not kidding about having some awesome things in the works. This has been such an excellent year all around for games. So many awesome things to play right now.

If their goal was to maximize their audience, then your strategy is sound, but there are dangers down that road too. Look at mobile gaming for an example of race to the bottom pricing models. Profit has to come from somewhere, and the only reasonable solution is to add microtransactions and ad revenue, then aim to maximize audience size and daily usage. I'm tolerant of the full price model for evergreen games because it provides plenty of unit sales to make franchise continuation viable while encouraging a complete game to be released without a f2p cash flow needed. I don't actually care what Nintendo (or any game developer's) bottom line is, nor do I care how many units are moved. I want the games I like to be successful enough to encourage more games of that kind to be made. If that means good games stay at high price for longer (or indefinitely) then so be it as long as they're successful enough that the developer has reason to make more.

It's been a decade?!

@Mahe What customers are Nintendo losing by not cutting prices on games that continue to sell well over long periods? Logically, they can only be gaining customers in this situation.

Again, this isn't comparable to Atlus' handling of P5. P5 isn't evergreen. Sticking to a full price point does nothing for its sales, and releasing a more expensive ultimate edition does seem a little out of touch. Not that I wanted any of that DLC anyway...

@Mahe There's a difference between Nintendo games and games on Nintendo's system. Games on Nintendo's system are often more expensive compared to their release on other systems. However, Nintendo games aren't more expensive, and @Fight_Teza_Fight is right that there's no reason for them to ever price cut evergreen titles like Mario Kart. Most Nintendo games enjoy that evergreen status because they're exclusive, so as more systems sell the potential audience grows, and the first thing the new audience often does is buy the Nintendo games they haven't been able to play yet. Atlus doesn't enjoy that setup, so what they're doing with P5 isn't really comparable.

@ShogunRok This ultimate edition is overpriced, but P5 has been enough of a success to guarantee the franchise's continuation. That's all I care about. Could they be pushing it more aggressively? Sure, but I'm not disappointed that I'm not tempted to rebuy a game I already own.

Nice to see P5 and Bloodborne at 2 and 3. Two of my favorite games of all time now. While I personally didn't get into Witcher 3, it's place at #1 is well deserved.

Awesome idea, can't wait until it gets rolling. Glad to see Kanji Tatsumi, but no Joker? That guy exudes coolness. Oh well.

I have never heard of Summon Night, but those flying things look like a cross between a Mario toad and a FF Moogle, except more professional because they're wearing a necktie.

Guess it's not for me. shrug

I guess this ad brings into focus how they stop you from playing the game. Perfect brand message for them.

ACII had a lovely database, but this is better.

@get2sammyb Is that co-op online only or did they include local at all? I could never get into the series before, but this looks like a good entry point.

This looked really interesting to me when I saw the first trailer. I'm hoping the final product delivers.

I missed the boat with Heavy Rain, is it still worth going back to? Does it still hold up?

Not surprised it's not hurting PS4 sales, they're aimed at different markets. It's not really a question of one or the other. If you like power, PS4 is your jam. Want portable? Switch all the way. As far as I'm concerned, Switch + PS4 is a perfect pairing. I love the games that both Sony and Nintendo bring to the table, so I'll always need both.