Shagger

Demon Souls. The "difficulty" is built around trial and error, and that's bullshit.

The big problem for me is deciding what my favourite game actually is. I'll go for a more recent one because the answer to older games is obvious, but also not their fault. I wish... Horizon Zero dawn... had... flying mounts?

Thanks for sharing. This really does look interesting and I'm exited to for it. Something very "Witcher" about it, I like it.

I've obviously struck a nerve somehow, so I'm just gonna drop it.

I also do like the "infinite" concept. You pretty much said it, it sounds cool. I'm looking forward to the long life f this game should I get the chance to try it out.

I'm well aware or the "past build" excuse for Halo's... let's say, issues with graphical fidelity, but those excuses only prompt another problematic question for 343 and Xbox, a question that fanboys would rather block than answer. Why wasn't there a more "up to date" demo ready? (please insert the answer here, but we both know there is no positive response). People can spin it how they want, but this was a cock up and worse, they just put that out there expecting the fans wouldn't notice, so that makes it an insult as well. All that along with the fact the there was no other actual gameplay demo's paints a very dire picture indeed. Don't get me wrong, Halo Infinite looks like a riot to play, but people are well within their right to expect more out of a next gen, AAA title, especially a $500million juggernaut like Halo, when it comes to graphics. As for the rest. Cool announcements, very promising games, but very little actual gameplay, other than the one that appeared to be last gen.

That's fair, I was just curious. You don't owe me that info.

If you don't mind me asking, where are you from?

Probably my favourite console. So may great games like FF10, FF12, MGS2, Primal, Devil May Cry, Onimusha Genii, The GTA games, so much good stuff.

This first one I remember playing was Combat on the Atari 2600, but it was on a multicart, so I might have played Basketball of something else first.

With all due respect that's a really self-centred, "bury your head in the sand" way to look at it. It hurts developers (especially indie developers), give thieves an easy avenue to get away with fraud, buyers have to risk buying a stolen game keys that could be revoked at any time without refund, but I get what I want, so it's cool, right? I obviously can't make you, I can only ask. Please, don't support G2A.

Based on what was said by Matt Booty just after the trailer for Avowed aired on the Xbox Showcase, sadly no.

I have touched on this before; It's so bad indie devs' were preferring fans to pirate their games rather than use G2A. I'd avoid key resellers altogether, but at the very least don't use G2A, they're basically an front for fraud.

First, I never said they wanted to release the game fully on console for the XBSX release. They said in the statement they were aiming for full release in 2021. What I said was they wanted to have the game out in some way, and they chose Early access on Steam XBox's equivalent, Game Preview. Xbox having the right to remove games from game pass is weak argument for a game that isn't even out yet, not to mention I'm quite sure Xbox's own games don't get removed from the service, why would they? The fact this game's publisher makes revenue of XBGP means that, indirectly, XBGP does fund the development of this game, albeit only in part. If I had an XBGP subscription, or even XBLG for that matter, I wouldn't want to believe even one penny of that was going toward the development of a game for beta codes to just be given away to just anyone. Because of that, giving current XBGP subscribers the chance to take part in closed beta makes sense, apart from that XBGP has something like 10 million members, so it would have to be lotteries or something like that and that's more bullshit to deal with. I fully agree with you that early access was not made for major publishers and larger game studios, but this more complicated than you're making it out to be. Xbox Game Studios may not be WHO early was made for, but that doesn't mean this game isn't WHAT early access was made for. If this game was near completion or ready to launch "live service" style to be updated as a full game, I would agree with you 100%, but this doesn't seem to be the case. People buying early access know the score, at least in this case they can feel more confident that will game will come out and their investment will pay off because a major publisher is involved. You buy the game cheap on early access or XB Game Preview, play it, offer feedback and do it all with far more assurance that most early access or crowdfunded games that the game will come out and you've save money over the final release price. Obsidian gets that valuable player feedback without having to deal with the policy minefield of once would associate with closed beta's amongst paying Xbox Members. Xbox getslower the investment slightly into the development, saving them money, whilst letting their publisher be free and just get on with having deal within extra bulk of their stress. I'm not saying perfect, but I can't think of a better way all round and everyone gets a win here.

This has been discussed before. The short version is no, and that's not about to change.

I've had a look at the steam page. There is no price yet, but this what is stated with regard to early access; What I get from this is that are claiming this about engaging with the community to improve the game as they develop it, it's not really about monetary support of the development itself. That would make sense if that's the case because it's clear right now that they want this game out in some way before the launch of XBSX. The problem, quite clearly, is that game is currently in a state where it's just not ready to be sold as a proper title. By putting on early access as, what's basically, a long beta test, they can develop the game more quickly to get it ready for release on console and XBox Game Pass. And obviously, XBox want it there as soon as possible. Xbox publish and promote the game, but their cash isn't the only thing Obsidian need and they obviously value early access for that purpose as they've used it before. I know what you're gonna say, "If that's the case then they should this make this game free." Well, they can't because people have effectively already bought it through the XBGP subscription. Obsidian and XBox can't ask people to accept a game they pay for through a subscription just given away for free. At least that's my theory.

@CrazycrabMissed the chance to edit. I watched it again and I noticed that Obsidian has been working on Grounded for 2 years, that's before they made their deal with Microsoft, so maybe Microsoft aren't an involved as first thought.

Somehow that detail slipped past me. You're right, that does look dodgy. Without knowing the details of how the publishing and funding arrangement is between Obsidian and Microsoft it's difficult to say for sure if this is a dodgy as it looks, but I doubt we'll ever know. They wouldn't be the first major publisher/developer to do this, hell, one way or another, they're all in the game of taking money from fans to pay for a game that isn't finished.

Well here it is, The July XBox Showcase. Now, the last time I did something like this on VGR was the PS5 Reveal. On that occasion I posted the whole even then each individual trailer making a small statement on how I felt for each one. This time, I'm not gonna go that because a lot of the trailers in this were quite short and a lot of the info comes from these pre/pro trailer interviews, so I'll post the event itself with time stamps for each trail where I make each statement. The first up is arguable the bigest gun XBox has its arsenal, the game that some say IS XBox. a $500million AAA atom bomb to launch the XBox Seies X into orbit. The new Halo. Halo infinite... ...and it looks like shit. The gameplay itself looks fun to engage with, it is Halo, but this can't be next gen. It looks like an early XB1, maybe even a good 360 game. I know Xbox fans are going to clamber on about its 60fps and all that, but when it's running on the equivalent of "Powered by a hamster in a wheel" settings on PC, that doesn't mean much. People have really been tearing into this on Twitter, and rightfully so. Moving on. at 12 minutes we get a very short teaser for State of Decay 3. Looks pretty in this cinematic, but there's so little I can't really think of much to say. Next after from inspirational sale corp' from everybody's favourite game executive Phil Spencer, another brief cinematic of the new Forza Motorsport at 15:26. Em Phil, It looks stunning, but just so you know, "Running in game engine" does not mean "Running in game graphics". At 16:33, a new game from rare called Everwild. It's cinematic AGAIN, but the art style is stunning and a bit different. I like the look of, and I sense a subtle environmental lesson in there, so that could be interesting. 19:37. Yeah, now were talking! A game from one of my favourite developers, DONTNOD called Tell Me Why. An interesting story concept and looks to follow the Life is Strange kind of style. One to watch that one. And it's coming soon, Episode 1 August 27nth. Next, starting at 21:45, is something of an embarrassment and this will spill into something of a rant from me. It's announcement of a new version of Ori and the Will of the Wisps for XBSX from Moon Studios. This is fine as an announcement, but the way this idiot yammers on about from rate. Now, if the difference between 60fps and 120fps is as significant and important as you say, why would have to lie about it to talk it up? Seriously, watch the vid. The comparative gameplay has clearly been slowed right down to point that it's playing about 15fps on the "60fps" side to make it look more jerky that than other side. That is not how a 60fps frame rate looks, especially on a game like Ori. Fuck off moon studio. Gamers, stop boiling your sense of gaming down to numbers! Because this is what happens, Halo Infinite sacrificing graphical fidelity to hit 60fps even though it looks like shit and the developers at Moon Studios having to fabricate a problem that doesn't exist to make 120fps look essential in a game where it clearly isn't. All just to sell a console. Rant over. 23:12, the first of two planned expansions for The Outer Worlds is announced, Peril on Gorgon due September 9nth. Great announcement, multiplat' game, nothing specially to do with XBox, move on. But not that far on as we stick with Obsidian entertainment at 24:43 for what it without my favourite part of the showcase, a brilliantly entraining trailer for Grounded. Now, I have no idea if this game will be for me or not, but this is a great trailer. So funny, self-aware and vibrant, I love it. The game looks good to, but like I said, I'm not sure it's my sort of thing, but kudos regardless. That was bloody brilliant. And we STILL aren't done with Obsidian as we see a trailer very promising looking new RPG called Avowed at 26:57. Getting some real Skyrim vibes, except maybe a little darker. It is FP perspective only, and I'm not a fan of that in an RPG, especially with swordplay involved rather than guns, but I've got high hopes for this. After some more up talking for NOT everyone's favourite gaming executive Matt Broody, at 30:05 we get a showing of a title from indie' studio Interior Night, a visual novel/interactive narrative called As Dusk Falls. This looks hard hitting and dark, I quite like it. It's not exactly the type of game to showcase the power of the Series X, it would probably run on an Abacus, still it's still good to see this types of games here. At 31:35 we get... NOT a trailer for Hellblade. Instead, they announce it's set in Iceland, and we can watch a documentary about how they scouted the location. This is XBox game I'm most exited for by miles and that's the best they can do? Well, given that the game's star Melina Juergens almost certainly edited that film, at least we can see some of her work. 33:04 and it's Phyconaughts 2. Jack Black sings and it's literally a mind fuck. Nothing not to like. 37:05 Destiny 2 coming XBSX and Game Pass, who cares. 39:41 A very promising looking trailer for Stalker 2. Not much to say, it speaks for itself, but this looks very. Cinematic again though, so grain of salt and all that. 41:39 40K Warhammer Darktide. No, I know nothing 40K Warhammer, so find a fan and ask them what's excited or not to be excited about, but it's a good teaser even though it's another cinematic. Is there enough grains of salt to go round? 42:58 Tetris. Fucking Tetris. 2020. Next-gen. Tetris. Fuck off. Next at 44:41 it is at least something from this decade. The Gunk. Like Everwild earlier, there seems to be some kind of environmental sub layer to the 3rd person adventure/platformer. Doesn't look that exiting, but I don't I'm the market for it though. Back to something more promising at 46:17 with the Medium. You play as a woman, who we can safely assume is a medium, investigating a murder using her gift to "look into the other side" or something like that. You can use what you see in one world to solve clues to problems or puzzles in the other. It looks cool. I'll probably play this. Now, this is an interesting one. At 48:48 a SEGA game is now exclusive to the XBox brand. New Genesis: Phantasy Star Online 2, and what's behind this has gotta one hell of a shady deal. You see, this is coming to both PS4 and Nintendo Switch... in Japan. The PS4 will come to the west later, but Switch version won't come to the west at all. I don't know who went down on whom to make this happen. XBox gamers typically haven't been very interested in these types of games, so I don't why XBox would flash the cast to secure this exclusivity, and I don't see why SEGA would want this either. The only thing I can think of is if XBox wanted increase their market share in japan, so sought out full exclusivity for the XBox brand, but SEGA wouldn't have that, so instead they made this bizarre compromise to affect sales only in the west. It's still odd of SEGA to flip off PlayStation and Especially Nintendo like this. 50:52 The campaign mode for CrossfireX is coming to XBox consoles and NOT the PC. I think this is the only game in the showcase that's actually a proper XBox console exclusive. The Multiplayer is free to play for people with XBLG Not gonna lie, it's not my sort of thing, but it does look good. Quite a brooding, empowering story it's shaping up to have. One last surprise at 53:40.... and it's a new Fable. Great news for fans, I'm just amazed there are any. Fable 3 and Fable legends did not go down well and the original was just a typical pile of broken promices from one of the industries the biggest liars Peter Molyneux. So, OK, I'm pessimistic about this, but I wanna be wrong. So that's the show. What did you think. For me, didn't light me on fire. A few good moments, a few good games, but most of the trailers were short and/or cinematic only. The one gameplay trailer for arguably their biggest game is now the but many Internet jokes. Check out the poll and lets get our collective thoughts.

Shagger Says: It took me a while, but I finally found the time to stitch this review together. This isn't an easy one, not just because I'm keeping it spoiler free, but this game has divided opinion so much since it launched that it's hard to say weather or not you trust yourself and your own views any more. But I thought about it, and decide to go for it as it's impossible to avoid invoking somebody's ire with ones view on this game anyway. So my disclaimer is, take it, or leave it. I also do this on the assumption that whoever's reading this has played the first game, so even though I wish not to spoil The Lust of Us: Part 1 or 2, there may be references to The Last of Us part one that may include spoilers for that game. If anyone is interested, please check out my synapsis and analysis review on the first game here. As usual, I apologise for any typo's and such. I try my best, but it's not easy for me. So let's get to it. What did you see? What did you hear? (Graphics, sound and voice) The developer Naughty Dog is a well funded developer, one the largest and most reputable game studios in the world, working under the banner of Sony Interactive Entertainment, one of the most dominant conglomerates in the entertainment and electronics business with may decades of experience and even more billions of dollars at their disposal. So yeah, it's hardly surprising the game looks like this; (The first two screenshots are from the net as I never thought to take any envirmoental shots while playting, but the last one is my own.) Yeah, you can spend a lot of time gawking at the photo mode. Graphical fidelity and the insane attention to detail really help this game come to life. Everything, the tracks left in the snow and mud, the blemishes and imperfections on people's skin, dirt and marks on clothing, the weather, the discarded bullet canisters flying out guns, blood splatters that appear on the characters when you attack close, the natural and varied ways bodies fall and rest, the way foliage and branches are disturbed as you brush past them, the difference in appearance between wet and dry cloths, I could on forever, but what this building to is a game that pushes the boundaries of graphical fidelity and attention to detail unlike any game I've ever seen. Even by Naught Dog's own impeccable standard, this is impressive. I'm on an original PS4, not the Pro, and I was still blown away. I've played games on $6,000 gaming PC's that don't look half as detailed and rich as this. A great looking game isn't just about graphics, in fact it's not even mostly about graphics. Art style and design also come into it as well. Obviously, The Last of Us is meant to simulate our world... twenty or so years after a cordyceps pandemic that wiped out over half the world's population and forced who was left to abandon society as we know it to survive, but the point is it's not going to be the most unique nor creatively adventurous game in the world. Not to mention it's a sequel, so has a base pattern to follow. Despite that, this does have an instantly recognisable visual identity, and with this identity still intact, I'd say that Naughty Dog have improved the way this game looks a surprisingly large amount from the first game. The environments, especially the cites, feel more overgrown, a greater scene that nature has taken over. Human character models are nicely detailed and look like they belong in the environments they preside with exceptionally well animated faces, especially on the main characters. The infected, especially the Clickers, also look more detailed and less like each other than in the original. They're also naked now, and I thought it was odd for them to be wearing cloths in the first game. Feel free to laugh on you own time, I'm actually being serious, why would someone who's been wondering around pretty much mindlessly for years with fungus growing out their walking remains still be wearing their cloths? Fabric would get worn, torn and ripped over time and it's not like a clicker is self conscious or has the wherewithal to find something else to wear. So I like that change.... … SHUT UP!!! I do NOT enjoy looking at naked clickers! Anyway, this is a visual masterpiece and anyone can appreciate the time and effort put into the fine details. You get you chances to appropriate the beauty of this game and revel in it. There's even a bigger variety of environments to explore in this as well, so the game can look very different from one part to next. The more fundamental things are also well done. I like the new layout of the in game menus, I like how the weapon upgrades now both a cosmetic and visual change (that may have been in the first game, but if it was, it wasn't nearly as noticeable) and the new animations you see as you upgrade them. The death animations are also more numerous, savage and brutal that ever. I just love it. I don't what that says about me, I just appreciate the effort that went into this... NO!!! I DO NOT LIKE LOOKING AT NAKED CLICKERS!!! SHUT THE HELL UP!!! Sound design can also make or break immersion in a game. This was of my favourite things technically about the original. I loved the soundtrack and the sound effects really do their thing to make feel the environments and action like you are really there. This isn't really an improvement as such, like I said the first game was superb with this as well, so what they've really is the same. Nothing wrong with not fixing what isn't broken. The one thing that did annoy was the sound cue that game gives to indicate an enemy is about to see you. They used the same sound cue in the first game (difficult to describe, kinda sounds like a build up of wind) , but this time it felt a lot louder and more, let's say, paranoid than before. I kept hearing it when I knew the enemy in question was miles away and/or not a threat in that moment and that's annoying. One thing that was not gonna go wrong was the acting. Honestly, there isn't even much to say. It's still at same industry changing standard it was in the first game. All the main performers, new and old, offer memorable and pitch perfect performances. I'll talk about the improved AI in a later section (spoiler alert, the AI has improved), but this improvement asks a lot or out of the VA's doing the smallest roles, like your human friends and foes out in the field. Communication, coordinating (in the case of the Seraphites/Scars, that involves of whistling in some some kind of code, an interesting touch) and even getting upset, screaming their friends names when watch them get killed and standard does not drop at all in the voice acting in these moments. You wanna take The Last of Us Part II on? Don't bother. It doesn't matter what systems you have or what games you have played, even by the standards of their own day, when it comes to presentation, this is the best game to date. Beyond any question or shadow of doubt. “You wanna fuck 'em up?” (Gameplay) First off, there's a guitar playing mechanic; Now onto the rest. I need make it clear, gameplay has improved subtly in certain areas, but has not fundamentally changed. Like the first game, The Last of Us Part 2 is a linear third person shooter with a strong emphasis on stealth, exploration and survival balanced to offer the player a choice in the moment on how to get past a section based you current resources and play style. So really, this about where it's changed and how it's changed since before, and that gives me an idea. What I'll do quote from the other post I made on the first game about the gameplay and then describe the differences because I think that will be more informative than simply “Telling you what it's like”. “Stealth feels dynamic because of the various ways the enemies in the game react, especially the infected runners and clickers. Runners can see and the can move fast, but take less damage than clickers and can be taken out with your fists. Clickers “see” using sound and if alerted, it’s a one hit kill if they get to you, so use stealth tactics whenever possible. Larger enemies called Bloaters you engage as bosses. They take a beating, attack at range and deadly up close. Avoid them if you can, but big weapons, Molotov cocktails and nail bombs will get the job done.” I mentioned how the AI improved early in human characters. Well, as strange as it is to say, the AI powering the infected has also an upgrade. Runners and Clickers behave pretty much the same, but Bloaters feel more dangerous now. As well as the long ranged acid balls, they can now charge at you, powerfully enough to smash through walls and destroy your cover, forcing you out in the open. I don't think there was ever a point in the first game that ever encountered or fought a bloater alone, you always had a partner in combat, but the enemy AI would definably pick on little old you. Irritating would be the word. Now, though, you can duck out and let your partner (if you have one) take some aggro whilst you find an angle, and the enemy AI does respond. As of course, so does you partner, who feels feels mare capable in this game and save saved my useless ass a few times. It's so much less predictable and fun to do play with than it was in the original. Moltov's have definatlly been nerfed in this game though, I don't think they should have been. There's other things to. In my quote up their I didn't even mention one of the infected types, the Stalker. Why? Because there was no point. They had a different visual design, somewhere in between a Runner and a Clicker, but they behaved pretty much as the same Runners did. Not this time though. They're slightly harder than runners to kill, but more importantly the name “Stalker” has purpose, because these things are silent and can't be detected in the “listening mode”. They silently crawl and clamber around like Gollum on mission to eat, well, your head I suppose. They game also come along with a new infected type, between a Clicker and Bloater called a Shambler and, unfortunatly, I feel this is a miss step. Don't get me wrong, I love the design... … but they suck. All they do charge at you and grab you like most infected do, but then produce a cloud of acid that can drain your health before you have chance to fight free, it feels cheap. They're pretty tough, but not much more than a Clicker, so they're not actually that hard to take down at a distance, the only safe way to fight them because, unlike Bloaters, they can't attract at range, but also can't be taken with stealth. So basically, they exist to bleed you ammo. The “best” thing though is, after you take them down, they explode in a cloud of acid hurting you badly if you are anywhere near them. It's a complete beginners trap and hate it when games do cheap shit like that. I was looking forward to seeing a new form of infected and was very disappointed to see what Naughty Dog came up with here. There is one other new infected in the game, but I'm not gonna say anything, just tease you instead... (That one is also one of my own) “The human enemies are OK to fight with, but are only varied by the weapons they carry and certain very enjoyable set prices the game has to offer and, at times, armour, but the level layout helps make engagements enjoyable enough. The AI is not that sophisticated , but it’s adequate and does offer enough sentient behaviour, opposing tactics and challenge to suit in this game. These sections I’d say weren’t quite as much fun as battling infected, but still very good.” I'd say there's more of an emphasis in combat against people in this game than before. I said that the “AI is not that sophisticated” in The Last of Us Part One, but it's all change here. I touched on it earlier that the AI is more communicative and emotional. They're also much more effective, and you can find yourself out flanked or even surrounded very easily if you don't position yourself well and anticipate their tactics. There's now brutes that can't be stealth killed in one hit, making stealth more risky and less reliable than before. They find a body, they'll behave differently. More cautiously. They will also search more thoughtfully and in areas they wouldn't have in the first game. They tended to just wonder around before, but now they'll look under cars, check buildings, cover each other as they do and even sometimes have dogs to sniff you out. One of things I loved in The Last of Us: Left Behind was the opportunities to pit human enemies and infected against each other. It's such fun, and there's plenty of opportunities to do the same thing in this game. I'm so glad that happens here as well, and it's a more tense dynamic with that improved AI. “Resource management and exploration are critical as you use supply’s, scrap and what I think is medicine you find in the world for crafting items and upgrading weapons and skills. Again, it’s pretty light mechanics, but smart as crafting items use common ingredients and you only find so much medicine and scrap, so your choices really matter in the crafting. There’s also a limit to the ammo capacity, so you need to use your weapons wisely as well.” Pretty much the same, not much to say. You have to find manuals now to unlock new skill tree's to upgrade and there's the aforementioned visual improvement to the weapon crafting, but other that it is a slightly expanded version of the same system. You play as two characters in this game, Abby and Ellie, and what is cool is that they each have different load-outs and access to different crafting recipes the other doesn't. It can be annoying when, for example, have to make shivs as Abby when Ellie has her pocket knife, or if you are Ellie and miss the superior firepower of Abby's crossbow and hunting pistol, but that's the game. I'd say while both characters load-outs are different, they're well balanced and I didn't feel stronger playing as one over the other. The partner AI is also more reliable than before and actually, you know, does stuff. Like I said earlier, it saved me more than once. They still do that thing where enemy AI can't see them even if your parter passes right in front of them, but think about it. How annoying would it be for your cover to get blown because of something you parter AI did? It looks ridiculous, don't get wrong, but it's defiantly the lesser of two evils hear and helps with actual gameplay. “Allot of these games that focus mostly on single player have tacked on multiplayer modes that feel half assed and just not worth it (Dragonage Inquisition multiplayer anyone? What, wanna do something more fun like carve yourself a new, wider path for your bladder to empty? Can’t say I blame you.). The Last of Us actually had a fun and fresh idea that involved linking your Facebook account to import “survivors” from your real life friends list if you wanted the allying yourself to either bandits or the Fireflies to then go out and compete against other players for your clans survival. The crafting, focused hearing mechanics and of course combat were taken from the main game and implemented well in a very tactically focused team death-match. Of course it wasn’t as extensive as other more multiplayer-centric games, but for a side dish it was a very tasty and surprisingly substantial part of the meal.” No Multiplayer in the The Last of Us Part 2. Yeah. I get it, they wanted to focus more on the single player game and that's the real point of the franchise, that's fine, but to see multiplayer disappear is a bit of a shame, especially when it was so unexpectedly good in the first game. There is a number things to talk about in gameplay that I didn't mention before. Movement has improved... in part. There more control options and ways to explore the environment including proning on the ground and using climbing ropes, neither of which you could do before and the natural cover feels a little easier to use. The one problem is sprinting. It feels slower than before and it's use is forced on you make jumps, and in that situation, it just doesn't feel intuitive at all. A lot of your movement is upgradable. This can be a good or a bad thing. It really depends of whether the character feels unnaturally slow and hindered without the upgrade, or it they feel normal without the upgrade and badass with it. In The Last of Us 2, it's a bit of a mix of both. For example, crouching whilst aiming feels terribly crippled until you improve it, whilst proning felt fast enough considering and I didn't feel the need to upgrade it. It's a similar story with the shooting. It's feels good with realistic weapons sway and recoil that can be improved through the crafting an upgrade systems, great sound to. Naughty Dog know how to make a 3PS. But yet, one thing was really annoying. I felt I got knocked down by enemy gunfire very easily, and natural instinct when I get shot is to keep my finger on the aim button to find my target, but when you do that you find yourself laying down on your back in a “reverse prone” position pointing the gun out in front of you completely out of whatever cover you were in. It takes a valuable few seconds to get out of this to get up and into cover and it happened all the time, really grating on my patience. Even got me killed on a few occasions. Overall, it's a very solid 3PS, and the enemy AI in particular makes up for some of the game's minor control issues. Another big part of the game is exploration. Now, people might be surprised to see somebody say this, but exploration is not Naughty Dog's strong suit. Not at all. In Uncharted 4, exploration was nothing more that vanity hunt to let the game laugh at people chasing a platinum trophy, and honestly, the only reason reason you strive to search every thing and look everywhere in The Last of Us is because you have to. You need the training manuals, you need to find the workbenches, you need the crafting resources, you need the pills to upgrade your skills, the parts to upgrade your weapons, but face the facts TLOU fans, it's a padded out chore and, deep down, we all know it. It's only made bearable buy the notes and some of the collectibles that can be interesting at times. I bring this up because I'm about to talk about one of the very real problems I have with the game. I talked about how in the original how the environment was actually a joy to explore because of how the environment itself told a story. This made the exploration mechanics themselves, even though they were a chore, easy to bear with. The Last of Us part 2 has a signifiant downgrade in the quality of this. This time the “environmental storytelling” as I called it is mostly done through the notes you find, so you have engage in the aforementioned “chore” to even get them, and it's mostly pointless, fairly forgettable stuff with only a few intersting finds along the way. The environments themselves feel larger with more in them than before, and whilst that's good for the gameplay, makes the environment feel more empty and less interesting to be in with less personality. It's not that game doesn't try, and in some sections really does well. The Hospital is Seattle is a fine example of this. Don't worry, I won't spoil, but the point is that's an environment that's fascinating and with a strong indigenous identity with it's story to tell just by being in it. The first game, I can think of several places like that. The Storm Drain where the inhabitants met a tragic fate, the University of Eastern Colorado abandoned by the Fireflies, The Ruins of Salk Lake City where escaped Zoo animals have taken over, Bill's town where he clearly dose everything possible to avoid anyone and everyone, the Hotel set up to host a high school prom, the suburb where the inhabitants clearly turned on each other with the ice cream truck and Ellie doesn't know what it is. In the sequel? Including the hospital, I can think of two, maybe three at push, environments that felt that way, and in a game that's twice as long as the original, that's a problem. Speaking of storytelling, it's time for the big one. “See, they should be terrified of you...” (The Story) Let me make this 100% clear. This is a Spoiler Free review, so I expect a spoiler free response section. I'll soon open up a discussion thread for spoilers, I even invite you do do the same thing if you wish, but please do not post any spoilers here. Update August 19nth 2021 The age of the game and the age of this thread is such that I've decided to open the comments to spoiler talk. Knock yourselves out. You may not know this, but The Last of Us's name has more significance than you might think. The original story was all about finding was left of humanity. Not humanity physically obviously, but our soul, our heart as species, as a people amidst the very worst of circumstances. An inspiring story of hope where it'll all bout finding the light in the darkness, telling us we could be redeemed. Again, if you wish, please go back to my other post on the first game to get the full scope, but this is a bit of I said at the time; “This has meant so much to so many and I for one, learned how important it is to embrace hope even when life is at it’s worst and life is only worth who you choose to share it with. We live in vain, materialistic world and ironically it’s a video game, a impractical indulgence that can only find a home in that world is what helped me see more clearly what is truly valuable. The Last of Us may have impacted you in a different way or even not at all, but whatever the case that experience belongs to you, so treasure it.” So I've been thinking, if this game, with it's tone and it's lesson had actually come first, what would they have named it to suit like the way “The Last of Us” suits the original? I think I've got it. This is not a story of hope, but hatred. Not inspired by redemption and love, but by darkness and revenge. A story of two young woman, corrupted by their own tragic pasts, driven into a new existence of violence and pain. This is, without doubt, the darkest, most shocking, provocative and uncomfortable experiences you can have playing a game. It's brutal, savage, unfeeling, upsetting, unapologetic and, quite frankly... ...Brilliant! Now, very many will disagree, and I completely understand... that they don't understand. It's upset them, pissed them off, but with all due respect, they have been too self centred to realise that's the point. This is not a shining smile meant to make you feel better, it's a dark beauty meant to be evocative and emotional in a very different way from the first game. I'm glad I took a few days before sitting down to write this because to really understand this, you need to reflect and, well, calm down. This game does rattle you, it upsets it makes you angry by design. It does what it set out to, and teaches you what it tries to teach. The story is about hatred and how powerful it is, but in the end only has the power to take, not give. To embrace hate is to embrace your own destruction. There's other things to live for, better things to live for. It's ironic how hatred and prejudice has driven the people who review bombed this because because of the strong LGBTQ themes in it, and of course it's a little sad, because they probably need that lesson more that the rest of us. Even so, this not for everyone this story. A plot this malevolent will not sit comfortable in righteous heart. A presentation this violent has no place in a civilised mind. Then again, maybe you need those things to come through it with anything resembling a positive outlook at all. It also makes the point that we're all the hero's in our story, that's the kind of selfish creatures we are, but it's possible we're the villain in somebody else's story, and who get's to say who's right? Do I like it, though. Well, too say like I like the story would be similar to “liking” somebody's obituary on Twitter or Facebook. You wanna express you sentiment, appreciation and respect, but “liking” it just feels...wrong. Now, dose it have problems? Oh, hell yes it does! Now, I already talked at length about the environmental storytelling has been downgraded, that's the first issue. No point going there again, but it's worth bearing in mind. The story in the original wasn't actually unique, not really, it's the way it was told that made it work. A liner, well paced tale that had it's life berthed into through progress and steady, well timed in game expositions and cut scenes. Now, for the The Last of Us 2, not only did they switch around the tone and message, they also swapped around the strengths and weakness of the storytelling experience. The last of Us 2 has more unique story, but it's not nearly as well told. These aren't spoilers, this right at the start of the game, this is just how it's set up. You start in Jackson, the town where Tommy and his wife Maria have settled. It's been five years since the events at the end of the first game. Ellie has grown up in service to the town, made a few friends and is now part of the teams that patrol outside Jackson to keep up observations on the infected. We also are quickly introduced to a new character Abby (that's the buff lady from the early trailer). Abby is also just outside Jackson with her own motives that, for reasons that become obvious, aren't made clear. One morning, Ellie heads out on patrol with Dina (That's the girl she kisses in the other trailer) and all seems well. That's when REDACTED happens, and the story begins in earnest. Now, you've most likely noticed something already, you play as two different protagonists. Abby and Ellie; Abby Ellie Now, this isn't a problem in itself, but it dose inevitably cause one. You play through the game with your time split between these two playing the same time period occurring after REDACTED. First one, then the other, to then switch again THEN again, for the final part of the game. Each individual story is also laced with flashbacks, that are playable, witch is cool, but fragments the flow of the story. The very fact you switch between the two characters also fragments the story. This does not flow very well and causes it's own pacing issues. So you end with is exposition drip fed to in chunks in whatever flashback or playible character you happen to be at the time. The character might know something that you don't or vice verser, leading limited understanding of the characters motivations or making some of the story after the switch kind of redundant because you already know, at least to some extent, what's going to happen. It feels a padded out as well sometimes because of this. As a result, it's more difficult to connect to the characters, especially the new protagonist Abby and those around her, until the later point of the game. Now, I get it, I totally understand why they did this, and if I'm honest, it dose actually work. You need to spend time with Abby to connect with her, especially after REDACTED and get to know who she is, but it does take some patience to get through to this point, and I'm not surprised to see some people just not have enough of it. So ultimately, that's issue. Not the story, but the way it's told. Like I said I understand, and I mean complexly understand why they told the story the way they did, and in many ways it works, but not without cost. “You really gonna go through with this?” (Conclusion) This is gonna sound like a weird question after all the time like question after you just spend all this time reading this idiots opinion for the last several minutes, but how do you review a game? Do you base it on did whether or not you enjoyed it, how adept it is technically and aesthetically, or whether it met the developers ambitions for it as a creative endeavour? Respectively, is it a Monopoly board, a painting or a book? As a Monopoly Board, there's not enough plastic hotels and a couple of chance cards have gone missing. However, it's still Monopoly damn it and the only reason you wouldn't like it is because you knew you didn't like Monopoly, and if so, why play it? As a painting, it belongs in the Louvre. An eternal and undeniable masterpiece that marks a precious and rare achievement. As a book, this is a novel that had the reader jump paragraphs back and forth, but it's still a good, memorable and evocative story that stays with you. You may be better or worse for it, but you are different. Looking back, despite the frustrations you had trying to get through that book, you did, and you were angry, even furious at times, but you were never, ever bored. My love for the last game made me hold this one to a higher stranded than I would do with most games and that may have helped what problems it undeniably has stand out, but this si still one the very best video games I've every played. Stronger that it's predecessor in so many ways, but also weaker in others, but one way this is better than any game I've played. It has courage. It takes a serious set to make a game like this in these days. The world is so self centred, entitled and opinionated that's impossible now to follow your own vision knowing it's controversial and stick with it, knowing you're about to piss a lot of people off. Love it or loathe it, this game needed to exist even if just to show important it is to stand up for your creative vision. It has it's issues, and they aren't minor, so I have to reflect that in the score, but it's still a masterpiece and well worth considering if you're willing to accept what you are in for. My Final Verdict.

Torchlight II is Free now on Epic Games Store, so I decided to give it a go. Not a bat top-down action RPG, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't feel unique. There's a co-operative multiplayer option available, but at least people are struggling to log in their Runic Games accounts in the game, maybe the offer on EGS has overloaded the servers.

Done.

Met aready, but welcome to VGR.

OK. I wasn't expecting that. This looks FANTASTIC! Like I said, I haven't played Sekiro, but after seeing that, I'm gonna! That looks about as far away from a "Souls" game as I've seen outside an RPS of shooter game. It's fast, quick-kill combat. If it feels "jerky", I imagine it's because this is very un-souls like. The movement is swift, immediate and significant. This makes Demon Souls looks like it's paused. I can't believe these two games were made by the same people. If someone is huge fan of Soul's, I totally get why they wouldn't like this or, at the very least, have it feel a little odd, but IMO it's all for the right reasons.

Well, and I say this with all due respect, the way the your post was written made it difficult for me gauge the tone. @Crazycrab has a point. Try taking a bit more time to punctuate and structure to make posts easier read in the future. (EDIT: Just to be clear, I didn't see the most recent post from you before posting this.) Back to the point. No, I haven't played Sekiro, so I wouldn't know, but Souls style games tend to have a kind of methodical combat pace, but that can feel slow and trapped. Could why I tend not to like most of them. I prefer more immediate, time based parry and strategy, but that's just me. I'd like to see what video you want to show, but I doubt there's a framerate and/or other kind of technical issue with the game that makes it hard to play, this would be a well documented problem if that were the case. Is your friend playing on PC or console? Bad software set up or a PC that simply isn't up to snuff might explain the issue he seems to describe. Still, let's see the vid' and if you think it'ss help the point.