Akun

You're right about him being a complete show off. He prides himself on being different from the rest which I don't see any essence of it. He could have used the money in better ways but that's not in his plans. Anyways, it's his money and no one is gonna dictate to him how to spend it. I call him iPhone freak whenever we hang out. 

It also means creating multiple games for different choices. No game studio would ever greenlight that, unfortunately, because that costs unreasonable amount of time and budget. You might get lucky to get a really dedicated studio that devotes 10-20 years of its time creating multiple games for the choices of ONE single game, but I haven't seen such a game yet.

Getting caught up in lootboxes is the height of it for me when it comes to spending money on games. It's so sad that these guys go to any extent to have their way into gamers pocket and milk them so hard. It's one gaming practice that should be rooted out by all means. 

I feel like most companies have already used bots for churning out positive reviews for their bad shows, so AI reviews don't feel like a new thing.

I used to pay quite a hefty sum for mobile games like FarmVille and other niched management games. They're so predatory, especially the latter, because their only "management" is to click a button and earn money in the game that way.
The only PC games where I got myself willingly engaging in microtransactions would be the dead game, Marvel Heroes 2016, but the microtransaction for that wasn't as bad as other games that use lootboxes, because I only paid for aesthetic items like Spider-Man's alternate costumes, where were a lot of fun because they came with different voice actors you might recognize from your childhood cartoons, like Christopher Daniel Barnes voicing the symbiote Spider-Man. That game was pretty decent, so it's too bad it died.

This is exactly how it's supposed to be because it's not worth it buying in on something that's not going to give you the value of your money. It's why I would like to wait for as long as it's worth the wait for it. 

Years, maybe even a whole decade. If a game doesn't pique my interest, and I'm not in the mood for an Assassin's Creed game, most Steam sales drop wouldn't make me buy the game, even if it's just $20. Maybe if it's $2 though. I wouldn't mind spending $2.

Honestly I think dark souls is on it so it would be what i would buy unless im mistaken

I probably wouldn't sell it off, seeing as the Switch is still a relatively new console that Nintendo wouldn't replace for a while. There might be other third-party IPs that might pique @Empire Of Sight's interest in the future released on the Switch.

I seen the Fire Emblem stuff online recently and it looked amazing, honestly fall in line with you there about using the P.C for everything else besides gaming but should have gotten a ps5 since it was easy to get here where I live for about $150 more than the switch >.<

Well, to be honest, the only JRPG I've ever played on it was Shin Megami Tensei V, which had a pretty lackluster story. However, I've heard that Xenoblade Chronicles 3 is receiving all kinds of praise, so you could try that out. I've also bought Fire Emblem: Three Houses and Three Hopes on the Switch, but I've yet to play them yet.
The Switch is unfortunately a pure gaming device without any other features like movie-watching or even browsing the Internet (at least I think you couldn't surf the net). It's not a home entertainment device like the PS5 or the XBox, unfortunately, but I never had to use those entertainment features of the PS5 or the XBox myself because I have my PC. I do use the PS5 for its blu-ray function, but that's on rare occasions when I need to watch South Park.

What RPGs do you enjoy on it? I wouldn't mind snagging one just to get the feel of it, could try to sell some of these other games I never touch.  Also other features does the switch have that are useful? Movies, etc etc?

I've barely touched Pokémon Legends: Arceus and the Pokémon: Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl Double Pack after a few hours of playtime. lol I do tend to use the Switch for other stuff though like JRPGs and visual novels; basically third-party non-Nintendo games, ironically.

Well I just wanted pokemon and some of the mario style games but it was a disappointment honestly XD 

That's the story with me, but for my PS5. lol I just didn't have any PS games I want to play that I didn't already have on my PC. 10 years ago though, that's a different story. I still remember how Kingdom Hearts and Detroit: Become Human were PS exclusives.

I'm always advocating for multiple paths in a game's storyline. I know it's hard to do, so I don't really have high hopes for such a feature to be more prevalent. But on the other hand, you get a JRPG like Shin Megami Tensei where some of their endgame content does contain multiple paths depending on whom you side with (SMT IV comes to mind). I believe Fire Emblem games also contain different paths based on whom you side with. I feel like this is mostly a JRPG thing though, because whenever a western RPG does it, they'd often resort to the lazy "slideshow" method like Fallout: New Vegas or Mass Effect 3, instead of creating three distinctly different gameplay levels based on player choices.
Now, obviously, games like Detroit: Become Human and The Dark Picture anthology could do it easily because they lack gameplay features outside of QTE, so it's easy to make them. But I would propose for game developers to be more daring and innovative, creating full game levels with multiple paths. You see this in older RPGs too like Dragon Age: Origins, so I don't know more AAA games these days don't have such features anymore. I heard The Witcher 3 had multiple paths, but I'm not really a fan of medieval fantasy settings, which is why when CD Projekt Red announced Cyberpunk: 2077, I thought we were going to get Witcher 3 with a sci-fi cyberpunk setting, with all the multiple paths Witcher 3 had to offer. Alas, that was not so, with the way the life paths were described by people who've played them.
Another cool concept I've really liked in the past is Undertale with the players' act of pacifism being a core important part of the story, and even though I had my problems with the message, Spec Ops: The Line had a nice concept like that as well, so I wouldn't mind seeing more games in the future turn the game genre on itself, like the Goombas in a Mario game calling out Mario for stomping on them all the time or something, or a Pokémon game where the questionable ethics of dog-fighting comes into question. Just spice things up a little and do a little subversion to make the familiar formula fresher, more interesting.
BioShock had a good idea in terms of farming the Little Sisters for ADAM, but they made it too easy morally to choose not to farm them. And I'm not talking about how challenging the gameplay is, but rather, making the decision more morally grey. I'm not exactly sure how to do it, especially in the obviously morally questionable objectivism of BioShock context, but a game where the innocence of a malicious ghost child comes into question would be interesting as well in horror games. Imagine having to play through Silent Hill 2 without killing any monsters, for example. 
Speaking of horror games, here's a concept for you: a protagonist whose appearance becomes more grotesque depending on your moral actions, but the other characters actually call out on this. In most games that have such a feature, I feel like the NPCs don't usually call out on the protagonist's appearance, such as Mass Effect or even Fable.
How about a horror protagonist with some kind of disease that gradually makes them become as deformed as the monsters they fight? Maybe the deformed lump of flesh becomes a burden even that movement becomes harder by the end of the game, and maybe depending on your choices, you could either become one of the monsters or fight against the disease with all your might.
I don't know. I'm just spitballing here. 😛 Hope it helps. lol

They called SMT V "Persona without the heart." That was a game released last year. That tells me everything I need to know, how little research they did about their games. Persona games are a spin-off of SMT, not the other way around. Their "Persona without the heart" was so hilarious it easily became the "Too much water" meme of our modern generation.
Plus, there's also the aforementioned Digimon Survive and Soul Hackers 2 reviews that I just found insulting and unfair. For Soul Hackers 2, IGN called turn-based combat dated. I mean, I get that a lot of gamers (particularly on Reddit) love to call turn-based combat "a dated gameplay," but I just find that to be a rather narrow-minded point of view because it's like calling platformers dated. It's a style of gameplay many gamers still enjoy today. Plus, FYI - Persona games are turn-based combat games and they gave P5 a high score.
So no, it's not just "one or two reviews" that made me think that way, but a number of bad takes that were made even recently, particularly on JRPGs and visual novels.

There's a lot of hype around CD Projekt Red "fixing" Cyberpunk 2077 again, and it did tempt me a little bit to repurchase the game and play it again (I refunded it after one hour on Steam), but after doing some research on the "life path" options, how they barely have any impact on the rest of the story, I'm once again not interested in the game anymore, which is a shame.
However, all these complaints about the life paths does leave me thinking. RPGs like Cyberpunk with their false illusion of choice is the reason why I don't enjoy sandbox games because the outcome of your decisions in sandbox games are as inconsequential as Cyberpunk 2077's life paths. Think about it. Choosing whether to be a Nomad or a Corpo in Cyberpunk only means something in your mind. Whether V is a different person from any other player's version of V is in your mind, because the story's gonna be largely the same for everyone. It's all imaginary, just like sandbox games like The Sims where you imagine the Sims to have more interesting lives than just whatever career paths the base games offer you (I haven't played The Sims games for a long time, but one thing that bothered me was that you couldn't even see what the Sims' workplace was like, making your choice of career path for your Sims feel all the more hollow). It's like playing with Lego blocks and imagining your Lego man to be some superhero when he doesn't even have a costume. It's like spending 100 hours designing a theme park in some super creative fashion - Planet Coaster doesn't give you extra points for creativity as far as I know, it only rewards you for meeting the visitors' needs and making the rides fun. Same with Minecraft. The only "impact," "interaction" and "reward" that exist for these games are in your mind.
In that sense, while that ultimately means that Cyberpunk 2077's inconsequential life paths wouldn't make the game appealing for me, I don't think the game did anything different from other RPGs or even sandbox games in terms of offering players the false illusion of choice. Many modern RPGs' "choices" are aesthetic-based, or more commonly, the choices only affect the gameplay, never the story, so Cyberpunk 2077's "faults" in terms of its life paths are more like the industry standard for modern RPGs. That's because it's hard to cater to the choices of billions of players. It's hard to make a bazillion different outcomes and paths based on player choices, even if CD Projekt Red did promise a game that "would change gaming forever." That's why when a game does create the lightning in a bottle, the rare game where your choices actually lead to multiple outcomes and endings, that's when it's such a gem to me, which is why I held Detroit: Become Human in such high regards because your dialogue choices alone could ultimately lead to so many different variations. Even Fallout: New Vegas did this better, even though its "outcomes" is just a series of slideshows, the same way Mass Effect 3's developers added different "outcomes" in the extended cut of the game through a series of slideshows.
But anyway, it's why I find it a shame that the roleplaying aspect of many role-playing games isn't as immersive as I would like it to be, for a game's story to reflect on your choices the same way a gamemaster would work the plot around your characters' choices and backstory in a tabletop RPG. It's why "roleplaying" is such a joke among a lot of MMO RPGs. I remember how roleplaying is pretty much dead in Star Wars: The Old Republic because it's just a bunch of people imagining their characters going on adventures the base game didn't offer. It's just kinda sad, to be honest.

This is the only one I could find that had his whole bit on it, so ignore the second half.

Hmmm. I want previous choices from early games in a series to continue in the sequel and not just stick to the default storyline and ignore your choice when the sequel is released. In other words, our choices should shape how the story unfolds in the sequel/s.

I'm always advocating for multiple paths in a game's storyline. I know it's hard to do, so I don't really have high hopes for such a feature to be more prevalent. But on the other hand, you get a JRPG like Shin Megami Tensei where some of their endgame content does contain multiple paths depending on whom you side with (SMT IV comes to mind). I believe Fire Emblem games also contain different paths based on whom you side with. I feel like this is mostly a JRPG thing though, because whenever a western RPG does it, they'd often resort to the lazy "slideshow" method like Fallout: New Vegas or Mass Effect 3, instead of creating three distinctly different gameplay levels based on player choices.
Now, obviously, games like Detroit: Become Human and The Dark Picture anthology could do it easily because they lack gameplay features outside of QTE, so it's easy to make them. But I would propose for game developers to be more daring and innovative, creating full game levels with multiple paths. You see this in older RPGs too like Dragon Age: Origins, so I don't know more AAA games these days don't have such features anymore. I heard The Witcher 3 had multiple paths, but I'm not really a fan of medieval fantasy settings, which is why when CD Projekt Red announced Cyberpunk: 2077, I thought we were going to get Witcher 3 with a sci-fi cyberpunk setting, with all the multiple paths Witcher 3 had to offer. Alas, that was not so, with the way the life paths were described by people who've played them.
Another cool concept I've really liked in the past is Undertale with the players' act of pacifism being a core important part of the story, and even though I had my problems with the message, Spec Ops: The Line had a nice concept like that as well, so I wouldn't mind seeing more games in the future turn the game genre on itself, like the Goombas in a Mario game calling out Mario for stomping on them all the time or something, or a Pokémon game where the questionable ethics of dog-fighting comes into question. Just spice things up a little and do a little subversion to make the familiar formula fresher, more interesting.
BioShock had a good idea in terms of farming the Little Sisters for ADAM, but they made it too easy morally to choose not to farm them. And I'm not talking about how challenging the gameplay is, but rather, making the decision more morally grey. I'm not exactly sure how to do it, especially in the obviously morally questionable objectivism of BioShock context, but a game where the innocence of a malicious ghost child comes into question would be interesting as well in horror games. Imagine having to play through Silent Hill 2 without killing any monsters, for example. 
Speaking of horror games, here's a concept for you: a protagonist whose appearance becomes more grotesque depending on your moral actions, but the other characters actually call out on this. In most games that have such a feature, I feel like the NPCs don't usually call out on the protagonist's appearance, such as Mass Effect or even Fable.
How about a horror protagonist with some kind of disease that gradually makes them become as deformed as the monsters they fight? Maybe the deformed lump of flesh becomes a burden even that movement becomes harder by the end of the game, and maybe depending on your choices, you could either become one of the monsters or fight against the disease with all your might.
I don't know. I'm just spitballing here. 😛 Hope it helps. lol

Yeah i've noticed amazon does not like linking to their site, oh well just google Hardcore Gaming 101 Presents: The Unofficial Guide to Shin Megami Tensei and Persona instead and you'll come across it i'm sure.

I think there should be a JRPG where there is a recurring merchant(like Oaka from Final Fantasy X) who is quite mysterious. At the end of the game, the merchant turns out to be the secret final boss and how powerful he is depends on how much currency you supplied him with throughout the game. Also some of his abilities and equipment depend on what stuff you sell to him. 

I feel like the problem persona 4 had, well apart from steam is that it was always released on platforms that were pretty much dead in the water. It came out on the ps2 in late 2008 in america, even spring 2009 in europe, at a time when pretty much everyone moved on to newer consoles. Same deal with the ps vita, while i won't deny the vita was probably the best platform persona 4 golden could get a release the harsh truth was who the fuck owned a ps vita, the best thing about the psvita was imo the people who had one loved the machine to death and pretty bought anything they could get their hands on, while it does not say much persona 4 golden is one of the best selling titles on the platform considering it sold 2.5 million units on a the vita alone and If vita hardware sales are to be believed around 10 million that is quite impressive for a series to is supposed to be niche. For the general public it's good to see persona 3 and 4 being re-released because these games have become quite collectible over the years.
You know this makes me wonder is Persona the more populair series now as it would be interesting to compare in a few years how many units Shin Megami Tensei V or the recent released soul hackers 2 sold. 
But man i would not call any Atlus or Persona game released overhyped, Atlus has been bringing out exellent games for as far as i can remember, imo their games deserve all the attention because nearly all are their games are worthy of your hard earned cash, the only problem is having the spare time to play them all. 
Anyways maybe i'm not adding anything new to the table but lot's of shin megami tensei and persona talk lately and you know i can dig that. 
Btw if you want to have a good read that covers the entire SMT series and all it's spin offs, i suggest you should check out Hardcore Gaming 101 Presents: The Unofficial Guide to Shin Megami Tensei and Persona, it's avaible on amazon if you are interested.

There's a lot of hype around CD Projekt Red "fixing" Cyberpunk 2077 again, and it did tempt me a little bit to repurchase the game and play it again (I refunded it after one hour on Steam), but after doing some research on the "life path" options, how they barely have any impact on the rest of the story, I'm once again not interested in the game anymore, which is a shame.
However, all these complaints about the life paths does leave me thinking. RPGs like Cyberpunk with their false illusion of choice is the reason why I don't enjoy sandbox games because the outcome of your decisions in sandbox games are as inconsequential as Cyberpunk 2077's life paths. Think about it. Choosing whether to be a Nomad or a Corpo in Cyberpunk only means something in your mind. Whether V is a different person from any other player's version of V is in your mind, because the story's gonna be largely the same for everyone. It's all imaginary, just like sandbox games like The Sims where you imagine the Sims to have more interesting lives than just whatever career paths the base games offer you (I haven't played The Sims games for a long time, but one thing that bothered me was that you couldn't even see what the Sims' workplace was like, making your choice of career path for your Sims feel all the more hollow). It's like playing with Lego blocks and imagining your Lego man to be some superhero when he doesn't even have a costume. It's like spending 100 hours designing a theme park in some super creative fashion - Planet Coaster doesn't give you extra points for creativity as far as I know, it only rewards you for meeting the visitors' needs and making the rides fun. Same with Minecraft. The only "impact," "interaction" and "reward" that exist for these games are in your mind.
In that sense, while that ultimately means that Cyberpunk 2077's inconsequential life paths wouldn't make the game appealing for me, I don't think the game did anything different from other RPGs or even sandbox games in terms of offering players the false illusion of choice. Many modern RPGs' "choices" are aesthetic-based, or more commonly, the choices only affect the gameplay, never the story, so Cyberpunk 2077's "faults" in terms of its life paths are more like the industry standard for modern RPGs. That's because it's hard to cater to the choices of billions of players. It's hard to make a bazillion different outcomes and paths based on player choices, even if CD Projekt Red did promise a game that "would change gaming forever." That's why when a game does create the lightning in a bottle, the rare game where your choices actually lead to multiple outcomes and endings, that's when it's such a gem to me, which is why I held Detroit: Become Human in such high regards because your dialogue choices alone could ultimately lead to so many different variations. Even Fallout: New Vegas did this better, even though its "outcomes" is just a series of slideshows, the same way Mass Effect 3's developers added different "outcomes" in the extended cut of the game through a series of slideshows.
But anyway, it's why I find it a shame that the roleplaying aspect of many role-playing games isn't as immersive as I would like it to be, for a game's story to reflect on your choices the same way a gamemaster would work the plot around your characters' choices and backstory in a tabletop RPG. It's why "roleplaying" is such a joke among a lot of MMO RPGs. I remember how roleplaying is pretty much dead in Star Wars: The Old Republic because it's just a bunch of people imagining their characters going on adventures the base game didn't offer. It's just kinda sad, to be honest.