Shagger

Just because PC gaming has long since abandoned disk based games doesn't mean that disk based games have lost any value. On the contrary, the advantages of disk based games are more precious and valued now more than ever and not just taken for granted because greedy game publishers are so desperate to be rid of them. They don't want people to be able to buy used games, swap games, loan games to friends, trade them and know they'll still work even if the store/service that provided them goes down. Like I said, just because PC gamers have had to live without these rights for so many years doesn't meant they have lost any value. So suffice to say, I say stick to your guns and get the console with the disk drive.

For me, all it really takes is for the game to be fun to play. If you enjuy the combat and exploring the areas you're moving around in within the game grinding is something I can easily tolerate, or even enjoy. I'd say that's, at most, the second worst. The worst and the point, at least for me, when grind really becomes a problem, and an all to common one nowadays, is when games are deliberately designed to tedious, slow and annoying to aid the goal in selling microtransactions. Basically making a game's grind so unappealing that you will want to pay money to not play it. It sounds ridiculous, I know, but that is the truth behind these types of microtransactions.

In all fairness, the game does look very good and can't have garnered the praise it has for no reason, but the idea of blinks to make command inputs is gimmicky and needless given that you still need another input to move around. It's still very much one to consider though.

This Uncharted fan film staring Nathan Fillion has to be mentioned here.

Jenkins: Sir, I've had a brilliant idea! Jenkins' Boss: Good Jenkins. What is it? Jenkins: We're going to revolutionize the world gaming like never before! Truly set the world on fire and capture and enthral the imaginations of gamers across the globe! Jenkins' Boss: Fascinating. How are we going to do this? Jenkins: We are going develop a game control interface that can only be controlled through an impulse action the human body does on it's own that the player has little to no control over! Jenkins' Boss:................. Jenkins:.... Sir? Jenkins' Boss: You're fired.

Really into this documentary about the "Star of Death"... was it?

Welcome to VGR.

That.

I liked the narrative and the way the game looked, but I found it difficult to get the best out of the gameplay because of some awkward, complicated controls. Move sets were made up of these massive button combo's that be asking a lot out of somebody playing a 2D fighting game, never mind a third person action/adventure. If one can look past that I would recommend it, but just know what you're in for.

I'm gonna pick it up soon. The improvements sound promising, but I'm still not sure if this game will really impress fans of Nier Automata. We'll see.

Compare gaming to other mainstream hobbies like golf, restoring cars, fishing, collecting, model railways and so on, it isn't that bad. It a fact of all hobbies that it the expense only makes sense to the person engaging with said hobby. Hobbies aren't t something you think through with your head, you think it through with your heart because you love doing it, and who can explain love? It's inherently illogical, but that's never the point.

Firstly, moving this topic to the Video Games Sub-forum as this topic is in reference to a specific game. Secondly, given that the game is free-to-play, there's nothing to stop you from just playing it. I think what you're referring to is the game's microtransactions and how to attain their benefits for free. If so, there's nothing that we can do for you as we are not the developers, publishers or in any way associated with the game. You could try and get in touch with the developer/publisher, but it looks like you are going to have to pay or grind just like everyone else.

Before I go any further, I want to make something perfectly clear to everyone. All members are entitled to their opinion, whether you agree with the view(s) expressed or not. I expect people to discuss and debate with respect to that. I will remove any posts that boil down to personal attacks and their may be further actions, including locking threads and taking action against members if if I have to. Just a reminder of that from a modorator stand point. On to my two cents. A man that was already restrained and no threat was killed by a police officer and was also denied medical care that would have saved him. And for what? An alleged fake cash note (that was never even proven). He was NOT a criminal. He wasn't being aggressive, he wasn't resisting arrested, only pleading that he couldn't breathe. The actions taken by the respinding officers and especially Chauvin were oversellous and unnecessary, so damb right it was exsessve force. Those officers were used to it being "OK" to use this exsessve force in these circumstances, those circumstances being against a black man. Because they have to be considered more of a threat, right? Because they're black, right? That's the way it is and has been for far to long within US law enforcement. Chauvin is a criminal. Found guilty by a jury of his peers. He knew what he was doing and the fact in his trained mind was "acceptable" is easily the biggest crime of all. I'm tempted to say it wasn't even his fault, but the instead the fault of the system he worked for. You say that now police officers would be hesitant to use force to restrain people in the wake of this trial? Good, it's about time they had this attitude adjustment. Sadly, it was to late for George Floyd. And it's not like he was the first. Statistics prove that black Americans are more likely to wrongfully arrested, stopped without provocation, giving unreasonable bail reqirments and subject police brutally and violent constraint than white Americans. Those are irrefutable facts and cannot be put down to coincidence. Honestly @m76, I'm a little worried about you. There has been several occasions now whare you have shown what looks very much like a very questionable moral compass when it comes to the issue of race. Let me make it clear that you have done nothing wrong and, like I said at the beginning of this post, I'll defend your right to express your views just like anyone else. So this is mearly advice, and nothing more. It might be a good idea to avoid such topics in the future. I just think that it would be for the best.

I'll see what I can do. EDIT: My tools do not allow me to do that. You will have to ask @DC.

I'm convinced it could have been any developer, or even any publisher for that matter, and this game would have been pretty much the same regardless. This was little more than bread and butter for Square Enix with Crystal Dynamics as a developer for higher. A soulless, cooperate attempt to print money at the behest of Marvel crafted with all the passion and heart of a Starbucks coffee. No wonder this dude was fed up. Square Exix is a publisher that can do great things and Crystal Dynamics are a talented developer, but everyone knew what this was even before the game came out and knew that neither of these companies really had their hearts into this.

No, game creators do not represent social/political minorities in games to spite anyone. I'm not saying such efforts of inclusion in entertainment media are always selfless, I'm not ignorant, but they aren't meant to spite anyone. Any "toxic manbaby", and I do indeed make no apologies for calling them that, or anyone else who feels spited by these efforts are the ones with the problem, and a big one at that. I get what you're saying about video games being a form of escapism meant to empower the player within a fantasy, I truly understand and agree with that, but that doesn't mean video can't have a message. In fact, that could even be essential. Just because someone doesn't like the reflection of themselves that message sends back to them it doesn't mean that game dev's are deliberately trying to be "holier than thou". A mature individual would try to better themselves in the wake of such an experience instead of pissing and moaning. That's why I disagree. I don't believe that genuine campaigns to de-politicise games for right reasons exist, or at least it's not even close to scale you claim. It's almost never about games preaching a message that's morally suspect or getting stifled through ploitcal censorship (not to be mistaken with traditional censorship). It's almost always centred about controversies surrounding gay characters, female leads, reflections of real world race and discrimination issues and, of course, sexualisation. I've said it before, these theme's exsist in games because all fictisous writing reflects reality to some extent, no matter how audacious the fantasy they've created. So to not want these issues be reflected in fiction is to not want to see them reflected in reality, it's that simple. And those who don't want to see these issues reflected in reality want to live in a reality whare they don't exist. Like I've said, time and again, they are the ones with the problem and creators of fiction are not responsible for that. And it certainly doesn't mean game develpers are trying to stop you or any of us "doing what we can't do in life", that is nonsense. The whoal of a video game is fantasise and be empowers otherwise it's not a video fame anymore, why would any game dev do that? One can get immersed in MK, Mass Effect or any other (good) game just because the characters are showing a little less flesh. If one can't, then again lies with the player, not the game nor it's developers. Of course there are instances whare games (and other media) take pushing a message too far, but that line lies far beyond just not liking the message it's trying to share. It lies far beyond altering a camera angle to better frame a facial expression instead of a character's ass or cleavage. It lies far beyond Sonya Blade's costume actually resembling something the character might actually wear instead of some slutty cosplay. It lies far beyond a characters armour showing less skin, but is more realistic. Like I already said, I have no issue with skimpy armour even if it is a bit nonsensical, but I see the manbabies who complain about MK's characters showing a little less skin as being at least as entitled, ignorant and immature as what I would describe as the "Professionally Offended" spending thier time finding things to complain about. They are two half's of the same stupid. You keep going on about the Asari in MA:A, but if I'm rembering correctly the the game had technical issues and inferiorities that affected character models throughout the game and wasn't a deliberate attempt to make the characters uglier. So unless you have proof to the contrary, I'm gonna have to assume that story came from yet another idiot themselves trying to drag politics into the discussion whare it wasn't actually relevant.

Again, we're back to this idea of "keep politics out of games" in favour of creative freedom. That's fine on paper, but the problem is people use that excuse to selfishly pick and choose what creative freedoms they want defended to the point whare they even pick and choose what even qualifies as somebody else's creative freedom. That's hypocritical and is actually what draws this "unwanted politics" into the discussion in first place. It is not up to you, you as in the audience, what qualifies as creative freedom and what doesn't barring obvious limits of morals, good taste and common sense. If the designers want a scampily dressed, big breasted warrior maiden with greaves shaped to a bakini line and a breastplate the size of an eyepatch, then that's their choice, just expect some ridicule because, and let's be honest, it is nothing more than nonsensical fan service. Likewise, if a designer wants characters to be more representative of how real people look, complete with warts, buck teeth and fat asses, that is also thier choice and, again, its not your place to question that and it certainly isn't anything more to do with politics than the scantaly clad warrior maiden. 9/10 times people play the politics card because they don't like to admid they would rather have a bit of moronic titillation rather than respect what the developers wanted to do because they would use the "creative freedom" argument in defence of fan service, and maybe have even done so in the past. EDIT: Additionally, the same "politics vs creative freedom" hyporcisy isn't limited to the way a character looks or how sexulised (or desexulised) they are. It can also apply to a developer's creative choices on a characters race, ethiticity, background, sexual orientation, gender identity and so on. I see it all the time and it never fails to piss me off. Skimpy armour doesn't really bother me and I could even appricite it as a bit of harmless fun. Hell, the character in my avatar (Velvet from Tales of Berseria) is one of the most blatant examples of fan service in a game I can immediately think of. The difference is that Velvet can be appreciated in so many other ways because she is a very fleshed out and well written character and the way she looks does have at least some context and is addressed with some self-aware honour on the dev's part. Besides, video games are no more guilty of this sort thing than moves and TV shows, and the they cast their characters rather than design them, so one could argue that's even more vain.

I agree. As I don't really ay the PS3 nor the Vita anymore this wasn't such a big deal to me, but it did raise concerns about how long people would be able to play games on a PS4/5 and I think that's what ultimately made Sony think again about this move. The fact is, feedback from fans has humbled Sony enough to change their mind, so this is a result. It was a similar thing when Microsoft first announced the XB1 and we (as the gaming community) managed to turn that around as well. I gave Microsoft another chance as did others and it humbled Microsoft into making better choices in the future, let's see if Sony do the same.

It's the only thing they would have to hand.

I have to assume the formal testimonials are written on toilet paper, right?

The problem is, wether you were aware of it or not, you opened a gate here. Someone needs help with a video game, you give advice and it all ends with that someone getting their head stuck down a toilet. I don't care if the story is real or not, there's a middle part to that story that needs told!

What the bloody hell was the question!?

You mean all those time I tried to set you up for failure didn't work? God, I'm useless...

I've never been more proud to be a Scotsman...

If it's the room I'm thinking off, then it is indeed hellish. It is possible to stealth kill everything is you take your time. I tend to try an focus on the runners, take them out to open a path to clicker to shiv it, then then that's the worst of it over. It is possible and helpful to backtrack and head the opposite direction from your start point to access the far side of the area and pick up a few stealth kills that way as well.