ThroughTheIris56

@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.

@Jackpaza0508 But most of those WW2 games were released ages ago. The last one was 4 years ago, and the last one before COD WW2 was 8 years before that. Right now WW2 is hardly more saturated than modern or futuristic settings.

I just want:
The game not being massively tied to warzone
More fronts/factions than simply Americans fighting on the Western Front
Weapons to feel good
Characters to fit the context
Them to somewhat try for historical authenticity (please make soldiers wear helmets)

I doubt all of these will happen, but if they do I will be excited.

Please don't let the Western Front be the only one in the game.

@Amppari I'd also be pretty mad if they made up historical garbage, but there were plenty of real life heroines that fought in WW2 that inspiration could have been drawn from.

I'm happy it's a WW2 game, but this isn't looking good.

Why aren't they wearing helmets in a warzone? Is that woman part of a military unit that actually used female soldiers, is she shoehorned into one that didn't?

This is giving me BF5 vibes which is not good. I get that video games aren't ever going to be 100% historically accurate, but there are things that really not hard to get right, and take you out of the immersion is that aren't even attempted.

I dream of a WW2 game done as well as WAW, but it doesn't seem likely at this point. Hopefully this is just a bad first impression and it gets better.

I started this on Switch, the concept is amazing, and eating humans as a monster is really fun. However the map, is unnecessarily convoluted and easy to get lost on, and it's pretty hard to find your way back on the path.

Looks really nice, how important is interacting with the animals to the gameplay?

I like Playstation and it's exclusive games, but they're giving me less of a reason to buy console over a PC on which I can now play PS "exclusives" as well as Xbox "exclusives".

I'm hoping it's a full length game with no peripherals needed. And given how well Ratchet has done, there's absolutely no reason this can't do well with decent marketing.

@KidBoruto Oooh, didn't notice the price. That seems like a really good deal.

It honestly wasn't bad, especially for EA. Lost in Random looks awesome, and I'm happy Dead Space is getting some love, even though I'd have preferred a sequel.

Looks awesome, but I'm a bit confused. Do I have to buy the director's cut to play this, or can I just buy it standalone and play it with the original game?

Running away from those rhinos sounds fun.

@Legacy2K Yeah, it's the go to game for me and my mates, and the main MP game I play by myself.

Very big oversimplification.

People usually remember games that are different. A game can technically be very solid, but if it plays it too safe it won't be memorable. On the other hand, a game that is ballsy is likely to be remembered even if it has shortcomings. The best way to be remembered collectively talked about, that can also happen with bad and disappointing games, like Ride to Hell, AC Unity and TLOU2.

Similar thing with sequels, just because a game is good it doesn't need a sequel. The original Last of Us is a perfect example of this. Then you get games that aren't perfect like The Evil Within that benefit from a sequel, as the sequel is an opportunity to make improvements.

Interesting.

@wiiware Yep, there's undeniable proof that there's a market for these types of games. If they are marketed properly.

Mad how well it's doing.

@Flaming_Kaiser Imagine how awesome a sequel or prequel would be, the original game had such good art direction so it would be good to see that world with modern graphics. It's an absolute bummer that Japan Studio closed.

Yep. PS5 has had an amazing launch year for games, but it's important to know that there is more coming, especially 1st party games.

@Rob_230 I'm guessing the reason Death Stranding has never had a trailer like that, is that it doesn't represent the game at all. It makes it look like it's an action heavy game, which it's not.

It was very mkay. Deathloop looks fun, despite the AI seeming very slow. Moss 2 looks amazing, but I'm sad it's only on VR. Lost Judgement looks awesome, and makes me want to play the first. Other than that, there wasn't much that interested me.

Looks lovely, I'm getting as soon as I can.

Great picks, very happy I've saved up my crowns.

@Pusher2021 Fumito left Sony a while ago. I believe he’s working on something with Gendesign, but as far as I know there’s nothing but radio silence.

Given how it’s almost been 10 years since the last Silent Hill game, I’m up for an attempt, even if it’s from a mediocre studio. The fact they made a game inspired by Silent Hill (not to mention had the same composer), shows they at least have a passion. Maybe they’ve learnt lessons.