ThroughTheIris56

@anoyonmus It's just hard to believe Konami is doing something not utterly moronic.

Looks amazing, its hard to believe it's from Konami.

Doesn't look like it will be scary, but it looks decent.

All I ask it that it's not called just "Twisted Metal".

@nessisonett Depends, on whether the devs/publisher are competent or not.

Luckily there are some companies that will finish their games before releasing them. Unfortunately it's embarassing that the cycle you mention isn't uncommon nowadays. But that doesn't mean it's a smart idea. It's dumb, because whether it's before or after launch, work whether it's bug fixing or adding new content takes resources to complete. Delaying a game means a temporary delay in game sales, whereas opting to fix a game after launch simply results in devs wasting time on fixing the old game (when they could be starting on a new project) and the consumers lose trust.

I get it if it's a small company and they urgently need to put out a game in early access to keep the company afloat, but EA doesn't need to.

@WallyWest That's fair, "awful" might be an exagerration, as you say lackluster and disappointing are better words. But the point still stands, the Pokemon Company is very complacent.

@Texan_Survivor Unfortunately Pokemon as a brand is so beloved at this point, developers can churn out any awful game and it will sell because players can use their long term favourite Pokemon in it. The Pokemon Company knows this, which is why there's been a massive lack of effort to put resources into their games, despite being the one of the biggest selling franchises in history. Why put in the extra money to hire more devs and make the game better, if people will buy it anyway.

This is all from a Pokemon fanboy.

@nessisonett We've already seen plenty of gameplay though, so it's not like we're lacking it. Plus, it's not really an issue when it's trailer focused on the narrative.

@Col_McCafferty Exactly, one of these days we'll stop seeing crazy and bizarre comments like "TLOU2 isn't dreadful"

@MyThoughts31 Preach it my dude!

That's vile. Hopefully he's brought to trial and punished accordingly.

Sackboy got leaked ages ago with Ratchet and Astroboy. It's taken a while, but I'm glad he's finally coming. Jin looks dope as well.

@lolwhatno Aha, misread it and didn't detect the sarcasm. My bad.

@lolwhatno Why would they stop if there are still players?

Not surprising, seeing its not made to appeal to people who would actually be interested in a WW2 COD.

@Lovespuds I second that.

World at War.

Best multiplayer maps, most recognisable visuals, felt like it represented the context well, most fun weapons to use (apart from MP40 being OP), solid SP campaign, well done DLC, and the awesome intro to Nazi Zombies that can never be replicated.

Closest thing to a perfect COD, I wish they’d try to make a successor.

For Sony exclusives, 2016 gave us Uncharted 4, Ratchet and Clank remake, and The Last Guardian.

That's annoying, but if it means those stores stay open for longer than I'll begrudgingly accept it.

@Xaessya I just want a new game from each, both series are class.

Would rather get it for PS5, so I'm waiting till I get one. Though if I did have one, it would have been a day one purchase.

@GamingVeteran An awkward mix of dopiness and angst. Ellie doesn't look much better tbh, maybe she just looks somewhat cuter. I'm not entirely sure why something isn't visually appealing, if you absolutely love it, good for you, I don't really care. Consider chilling out next time someone has different opinion on a LBP skin.

For how well the LBP games make skins from other franchises work really well, the Abby one is just uncomfortable to look at.

@nomither6 Yeah. I'm happy with anything that expands on a universe, as long as it's done well. Though retcons are generally annoying, that's why I'm not a fan of constant remakes.

@nomither6 Also, I wish they'd be bolder when reviving dead franchises. Instead of remaking something that's perfectly fine, I'd much rather get sequels/prequels.

Not really. I'm happy for people who like super hero games, but I couldn't care less. Plus there are plenty of gaming IPs that are dead and could use some love.

@Serialsid It's more valuable in comparison, but that's not because it's been made better, it's because value was taken away from competitors. It's an issue when anyone does it.

@Serialsid And I think it's scummy when the other 2 companies do it as well. To be clear, in cases were a company's funding is needed or makes the game better, I don't mind exclusivity. However it's Star Wars, I'm confident they could get funding anyway. I find it hard to believe that this project would have been lost without Sony. If Sony is legitimately actually providing help with the project, (wouldn't mind seeing sources) then fair enough. If not, paying to simply make the experience worse for other platforms is anti-consumer.

@Bleachedsmiles Oh ok, I thought it was off Xbox entirely, good thing it is coming. That being said, paying for timed exclusivity is just pathetic. In totally in favour Sony diversifying it's exclusiveline up, as long it makes the games itself. It's pathetic that Sony apparently have money to spend to screw over other consoles, but don't have the money to keep running beloved game studios.

@Bleachedsmiles I disagree about it being a shame it's not exclusive. I'm all for certain franchises like Uncharted and Ratchet and Clank being kept exclusive (which Uncharted now apparently isn't), but Star Wars has fans across all platforms and has no association with Playstation. Yeah it's a good business move on Sony's part, but that doesn't mean it isn't scummy.

@AlexSora89 I haven't played the game, but from what I understand from watching reviews, the content is very repetitive. So it's probably best to remake it and add loads of new content.

I hope so. Crash 4 was way too good, just to not make any sort of follow up game.

@Northern_munkey Cheers man, I appreciate it. I even implied it myself, but I would have given up if I wasn't so stubborn lol.

@Nepp67 At least Sony don't seem as USA focused as they did.

@Thelegend159 Cheers man! Personally I'd love a Korean War game, or even another shot at Vietnam. I don't mind lots of WW2 games because it's such a vast conflict and there's so many different areas, as long as devs actually utilise them.

I don't mind a bit of customisation to improve gameplay, but yeah it should be done in a semi believable way. Sometimes more isn't always better.

@MFTWrecks Compared to newer CODs, older COD games weren't bad for historical accuracy. If you've played any game before Black Ops, you should know that. I agree that CURRENT COD games aren't accurate, and that's my issue. The whole problem is that COD used to be a series you could go to for fun gameplay, which gave a decent depiction of history. I am fully aware it isn't the best option, and it shouldn't be that way.

@MFTWrecks Have you ever played a COD game before the PS4? COD WAW was not fully lifelike WW2 simulator, that doesn't mean it didn't at least try to be accurate. All the player avatars represent the demographics of each faction, the soldiers wear uniforms that make them look like actual soldiers, and the used weapons and equipment that would have been used by the men they are based off. Unlike Vanguard, it even wisely omitted the STG-44 (a rifle made in 1944), from the mission in Stalingrad (a battle fought in in 1942/3) As I've said repeatedly said, devs may and often need to take creative liberties to make a game fun to play. COD WAW doesn't play exactly like WW2 was fought, but the assets are what make it a good WW2 game, because it somewhat resembles the context. But the above don't seem to apply much to COD Vanguard, so it makes me wonder what part of it IS actually based off WW2. If you honestly like the aesthetics of the game, power to you. But I'm willing to bet you're not interested in the game because of what it's based off. Granted, I don't think WAW was perfect, Dogs as a killstreak were pretty ridiculous (partly for gameplay reasons as well), but that's nothing compared to RC-XD tanks.

I'm not sure how many more ways I can explain this. If you're not interested in historical games, I don't get why you're arguing about this.

@MFTWrecks I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand the appeal of historical media. As in, actually feeling authentic to the context it's trying to represent.

@Tecton217 Aha, cheers dude.In some ways, devs thinking about inclusion can be a good thing, it can attract more players and make games more interesting. But yeah, sometimes it's just done extremely poorly.

@RawnDawn That is a valid point. Customisation is so much more extensive in COD nowadays, precisely because it can be monetised.

@MFTWrecks There's no need to aim to make everyone feel represented. Maybe I'd like to feel represented by having the choice to play as a vegan, atheist, Brit in the battle of Iwo Jima. Those are characteristics that represent me, so the devs should strive to put them in right? No they shouldn't because it's totally unreasonable.

If a female wants to play a game in which they feel their gender is represented, given that the overwhelmingly majority of soldiers throughout history have been men, choosing a war game really is not the smartest pick and they should probably look elsewhere. Besides, the whole point of a historical game is to put you in someone elses shoes, depending on the relevant context. Hence why I wouldn't expect devs to let me a play as a character modeled of my aforementioned characteristics if the setting was Iwo Jima. I would expect to play as a young, male, Christian, American, because that's who most of the Allies there were.

@Tasuki Completely agree. There are games where wacky customisation options are for the better, for example I love Fall Guys for it. But yeah, it's not massively welcome in a series that started off portraying it's setting really well.

@RawnDawn Would you believe me, if I told you about a time where COD didn't have ridiculous skins, and customisation options that didn't look completely out of place. And the characters actually, (gasp) fit the historical context!

@Tasuki Unfortunately so. Granted COD's audience has always consisted of kids and teenagers (I was 12 when I started), but I miss when it at least tried to appeal to adults. Too much customisation sometimes really can make a MP worse.

@MFTWrecks I literally prefaced my first comment, with that first sentence I wrote, because I knew that argument would be made if I didn't. Apparently that was a waste of time because you clearly didn't read it.

Thank you very much for making aware that a war game wouldn't be fun if it wasn't entirely realistic and involved being blown to pieces by artillery before seeing the enemy. That is why I obviously favour gameplay not being 100% realistic, so it can be fun. However, flooding the Battle of Okinawa with tons of female US Marines, isn't realistic, and doesn't improve the gameplay whatsover, so is completely pointless and is only detrimental to the game. Do you get my argument?

@MFTWrecks The vast majority of soldiers in WW2 were male. Most females who were in the military were in non combat roles, such as medical. Most female combatants would be partisans, and not soldiers in a formal army. The Soviet Union has the highest percentage of female soldiers, but even that was only 3% and most of them were medics. In other countries, the women served as auxillaries, not in front line combat roles.

Women played a massive role in the war effort on both sides, and that should be recognised. However, making up rubbish and pretending that women largely participated in conventional combat, is disingenuous and doesn't honour anyone. It just makes a historical game bad at representing history, for no good reason. I honestly liked the Rosseau in CODWW2, and it's great that there is a female sniper in the campaign for Vanguard, because those ways actually represent women in WW2. Flooding the MP with female soldiers, does not represent women in WW2.

I get that certain creative liberties need to be taken to make a game fun. But what's the point of making a WW2 game if it's barely going to resemble WW2. Barely any of the characters look like a soldier from that era. It's not unreasonable to expect an attempt at making an authentic experience. COD has stepped so far away from being but arcadey enough to be fun but having realistic assets. Now that COD has thrown any attempt at historical accuracy out of the window, there's nowhere to go for that experience that COD used to offer.

I don't get who on Earth they're trying to appeal to. People who are interested in a game being about WW2 most likely want it to seem somewhat realistic. People who want wackiness and unlimited customisation with female soldiers, probably won't look to a WW2 shooter. These design choices don't make any sense.

God I wish we could get a new Motorstorm. It's a shame Driveclub got made instead, especially when Gran Turismo is a thing.

As for my dreams, I'd happily take: PSASBR, Sly Cooper, or a new Tearaway game.

A bit overly cinematic for my liking, but looks decent. The gun sounds/handling are well above WW2's.

Doesn't look bad. A good variety of fronts, lots of factions (with the inclusion of Australia and Britain), and the female character's inclusion actually makes sense. I'll keep my eye on this.