Shagger

Don't wast time trying to be that noble about it. People have making the same complaint about opulence for decades, if not centuries, but I'm sure if some says it once more, the wealthy and upper class will give up every excessive luxury and give away their wealth. I admire your ideals, but it's just not the way the world works.

Well, @DC, I guess I'll start the bidding at 1 billion points. I know I don't have that many points, but I promise I'll spend the next couple of decades working it off on here. To the topic at had, I actually like it when companies do this sort of thing. Obviously, this is a luxury beyond the reach of most people and it's a complexly vain, self-centred indulgence for those that can, but anyone can admire this sort of thing the same way we admire supercars. Yes, the vast majority will never be able to afford one, but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy them. It's not practical, it's not necessary, but we create them anyway because it's cool and a statement of human spirit, doing it because we can. Still, there are people berate companies who create these rare, luxurious collectibles (I'm just ready to see an XBox fanboys do so with regard to this, for example). I remember a couple of years ago Ubisoft partnered with electronics manufacturer Focal and the very exclusive and prestigious Parisian jeweller Tournaire to come up with this; Hand crafted, 18-karat gold headphones with a designed themed around Assassin's Creed Origins. Only 10 were ever made with watering price tag of 50,000 euro (around $60,000) and could only be so much as viewed but booking an appointment directly with Tournaire's boutique in Paris. I was on a Discord channel when some crusader was trying to call-out Ubisoft on their greed in reference to this, but he got upset when nobody was buying what he was saying. Most of us saw this for what it was, a luxury indulgence for the very rich, not an attempt by Ubisoft to be anti-consumer. If anyone with any sense wanted to call Ubisoft out, they would lead with the microtransactions, not an ultra rare, ultra expensive collectible that would make Ubisoft a few tens-of-thousands of dollars at most. He kept referencing to some rant fuelled, obscure article that pointed out "You could have a Porche for that price". True, you could, a Porsche Boxter, the bottom rung Porsche sports car, and the basic Boxter at that. I remember saying that would rather have the headphones because that's at least a statement of wealth, driving a Boxter tells the world you wanted a 911, but life hadn't worked out the way you hoped, and you couldn't afford one. Even The Last of Us Part II couldn't escape a scathing from idiot haters over this limited edition Talor Guitar with the same design as the Ellie's Guitar in the game, a price that was just $300 more than the $2000 guitar it was based on. Any excuse and people will use it. The point I'm trying to make it is, wether one is able to afford them or not, people should just be allowed to enjoy these things, whatever that means.

For me the difference is as follows. The "Video Games" section is there to hold topics relating to a video game(s) specially, so that would include stuff like reviews, discussions of tactics, hints and tips, SSP of ones own game projects, ect. "General Gaming" is there to hold a more broad spectrum of topics related to gaming, but necessarily specific to any game or games, so discussions on business practices in the industry, platforms, gaming history, peripherals and hardware, gaming related video content, gaming music, art and so on. I hope that helps.

Honestly @StaceyPowers, I think you're reading too much into it. Google, for example, knows everything about you, including what pet you feel OK to masturbate in front of, and the only reason you aren't disbursed by that is because you don't know that they know. I'm not trying to imply anything at all nor offend in any way, It's just metaphor for how disconnected that these things actually are from you. In the end, all they do with that information is send adds for a "Miss Kitty" branded hairbrush because you googled "Miss Kitty" that one time. You shouldn't be threatened by something so intuitive, yet so stupid at the same time. If people get a guarantee on a PS5 that they were going to buy anyway, then good for them.

You can't blame people for their hope. Exploit them, yes, and that happens a lot in the gaming industry, but with this game I do see a developer who is listening and whilst proud of what they're doing, they're not satisfied. I like that.

Fair point. Deserts are not interesting, but then a friend tells you they are interesting, so you study them until you realize they're not interesting

Whilst I'm limited in the amount of good things I can say about Dragon's Dogma, the character creation system, even for an RPG, is unveiled. Gender, height, weight, visual age, facial features, skin colour, hair colour, hairstyle and even the BMI, there was nothing you couldn't change for both your character and your main pawn, meaning you got to play with the brilliant system twice! The character customization even had gameplay effects, it was truly brilliant. It's a shame the rest of the game didn't hold up. This extends to weapons an armour as well,and whilst I have to admit the system isn't as easy to use to customize apprentice of items as the character itself, it makes up for that by offering so many options. The best armour custom system though, that's tough because so few games offer a good system, but FFXIV was pretty cool. You could do a lot of different things, but it took resources that were tedious to gather.

Like I said to @m76 already, Ellie and Dina's relationship and this incident with this blatant bigot is not the bulk of what I'm referring to. I'm more referring to Lev's story arc that makes more of a statement in its own way. Get back to me then tell me after you've beat the game that the developers haven't made their viewpoint on that issue 100% clear, whether you agree with them or not. That's not a critique, like a said, it's part of a developer's creative liberty to express a social/political viewpoint, but just because you agree with and/or sympathize with the statement, doesn't mean it's not a statement.

Game development isn't baked per slice, believe us mere mortals who are not involved with software engineering when I say we get that. When this demo went viral, the developer took to social media to apologize for the "flaws", so we're obvious not dealing with EA Sports who are happy to say "At least it's not a 1 out of 5". The fact the developer actually respects the craft enough to care and produce something as good as this is at such an early stage is what presents the potential here, something a hell of a lot better than the "pinky promise CGI, send money now" approach.

Wow, I have to say that's a very elegant, intelligent and mature take on matter. So much I'd never considered. I thought @m76make a fantastic point that I believed was unarguable, but you took you it on and I could almost feel myself becoming even more enlighte... Nope, you ruined it.

You can adjust the search parameters in the drop down menu of the search bar even if you are on a specific sub-forum or topic, but still, it's an easy mistake to make and no harm done.

@m76 Actually, there has been. Merging threads.

Well, the title says it all. The original Division is free to install and keep through UPlay for next few days. I'm not sure what worth this game will have because it's been out for so long, but it's free. Anyway, here you go.

It's not perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better. I'd say it's, at the very least, stable. Of course, there's still no better version of the game than a heavily modded version on PC, with the XB1 second because that version is also a little more mod friendly than the PS4 version.

We're humans. Incisors, canines, eye's at the front. As much as some people would want to deny it, we're predators. Violence is part of what makes us, whether we want to believe it or not. Anger, aggression and danger are exhilarating because it's part of our base instincts. A desire to cause suffering is a different matter, that's a mind gone wrong or emotions out of control, but that doesn't change the fact violence is empowering and pleasurable because of what we are. That's where video games come in. Every good video game, regardless of genre, has one thing in common, the empowerment factor. Whether it be defeating the great, soul devouring Dragon Alduin in Skyrim, becoming a war hero in COD, becoming a superhero in Spider-Man, ruling the underworld as a feared crime boss in GTA or lifting the Champions League trophy in FIFA, if a game doesn't make you feel like you're more than what you are, it's failed. Taking lives and causing harm are amongst the most powerful things a person can do, but thankfully most people don't want to cause others to suffer. Yes, we're predators at our core, but we're also sentient and compassionate with morals and laws to guide us around our most base, violent instincts. Violent video games provide a safe, harmless outlet to embrace those instincts and enjoy that primeval rush. Speaking personally, I don't think violence on its own is an appealing thing, it's disturbing actually, but violent video games provide a safe, harmless outlet to indulge in those base instincts that we all have and there's not a damn thing wrong with that.

This is great, but there is a rather baffling catch. The games are only available until "approximately March 31st 2021". What's the point of only having these games as an exclusive to help sell both itself and a console only available for six months as opposed to having this game sell itself and the console for years to come? I suppose what they're thinking is only offering the games for sale for six months they'll temp more people to buy a Switch during the launch period of the PS5 and XBSX, but forcing fans to choose between spending money on a Switch and next-gen, people are going to choose next-gen. You can tell this is from the same idiots who thought making the NES Mini and SNES Mini in limited quantities was a good idea, and they lost potentially hundreds of thousands, if not millions of sales because of it. Stop it, Nintendo. This idea of limiting availably to increase short term demand does not work out better in the end, it only pisses people off.

Oh look at the fun way they've spelled "Phoenix"!... ...yeah, I'll pass.

Could you please provide some examples of this? I can't think of a specific character or game that fits that pattern. I can definitely imagine such things being annoying and in poor respect to the intelligence of the audience, but I personally don't recall seeing it happen myself outside of something specific and indigenous to the story. You are 100% correct on how Ellie and Dina's relationship was portrayed in that game and no, I don't see the inclusion of LGBTQ characters as political at all, I'll leave that to morons. I was just making the point that some people (as in the aforementioned morons) did see it that way and it became political because of their own, selfish prejudices, not because it actually was a statement. What you are not correct on is the game not having LGBTQ social/political themes in it, and l'm not even focused on Ellie and Dina when I say so. You're right, their relationship was portrayed in a realistic, subtle manner that wasn't shoved in one's face. There is some limited bigotry put on display with regard to them, but I was mostly referring to Lev. For spoiler reasons I'm not going to go into any more detail than that, but as someone who's played the game, you'll know what I'm on about. Lev's struggles and the way the society he's grown up in for being who he is a very potent theme, a vital part of his story arc, and a very deliberate example of the kind of reflections of reality that I spoke of earlier. I obviously agree what the game subtly states about his rights, but whether one does or one doesn't agree the game makers and writers make how they feel about it quite clear and that's their right to do so without being accused of imposing some kind of agenda. So that's why this part doesn't really make sense. In an ideal world, it would, but that's not the world we live in. You can't separate stories that you find relatable and can feel passionate about from reference to real world social and political issues, no matter how metaphorical, vague or subtle they are. Even if creators are blatant about it, like with Wolfenstein or BioShock Infinite, that doesn't automatically make it a bad thing and it certainly doesn't automatically spawn bad games. Social politics, especially from the perspective of the individual, are always more complex than just left and right, so the expression of it is inevitably more complex as well. Whether I agree or not with what the creators feel about the subject at hand, I always defend their right to creative liberty. The problem with most people is that they will only defend a creator's creative liberty when they agree with the statement and not otherwise, and brings us right back to what is the main concept of the "too political" card, hypocrisy.

I always find this statement fascinating because it's impossible to say that without coming out of looking, at least to some extent, like a hypocrite. Video games are an entertainment media. Even when it's a work of fiction, it's still something from the imagination of someone living or has lived in our reality, so no matter how far the fantasy goes, there's always at least reflection of reality because there nothing else to inspire it. Because if that, and this is especially true if any game telling a story, it's pretty much impossible to avoid real world social and/or political issues if you want to create something compelling and relatable. You can't a GTA game free of politics because it's a crime SIM. You can't have COD (or similar) without politics because it's themed around war and conflict. You can't have any game that karmic or moral choices without politics or social ideology either. There's very little you can do that doesn't involve politics or social in any fiction worth a damn, and only becomes a problem when an individual decides it is. Take yourself, for example. I remember you very recently speaking a lot of praise about The Last of Us Part II, and deservedly so, it's a great game, but there's a lot of modern social politics in that game, more specifically with regard to the LGBTQ themes in it. They're 100% wrong of course, but there are people who consider that "too political". The truth is that there homophobic prats, but that's not the point. The point is that would you have been so happy with the if the the game had demonstrated a positive stance on BLM? Something you've criticized? That's the problem with the "too political" card. It's only played by people when a game promotes a social ideology or makes a social/political statement that they don't like, but would offer no complaint or maybe offer praise when it's a ideology or statement they do like or agree with. It's hypocritical, self-centred and goes against a creator's right to freedom of expression.

Pretty much spot on. The gameplay improved in pretty much every way. As aforementioned, went to greater detail in my review, but the issues the games has doesn't really stem from the story itself, more from the way it was told. The original didn't find strength in the unique aspects of its story, to tell the truth it wasn't that unique a story, but it was told with such great pacing that really engrossed you in so easily. The Second game actually does have a more unique, challenging narrative, but it's told in a more jarring and less fluent manner. I can understand why they did it the way they did, and it does work, but not without cost. Still, it's a brilliant game, of the very best this generation, and in what honestly has not been a great year for big, story-centric games.

I really wouldn't worry about that. You fit in here, and it's not like you fit and contribute despite being a retro gamer, I'd say you fit in and contribute because you're a retro gamer. Yes, this isn't specifically a retro gaming forum and the majority of people here talk mostly about current games, but that doesn't mean you should doubt that you belong here. I think I speak for everyone when I say your valued here, more than you know.

I have my Facebook and Twitter. Not much more to say other than follow me, or they will never find your body.

s something I actually agree. The key to realistic looking characters is imperfection. Not that Abby, Ellie, Dina nor any of the other woman in that game are unattractive, I'm simply saying that the imperfections is what makes characters visually unique, human, identifiable. However, I will always defend the notion that a character does not need to be ugly to be identifiable unless it's something very indigenous and specific to the story, it's all about the perceived personality and their behaviour. I set the same standards with really good-looking characters as well. Take Aloy; ...a truly amazing young woman who looks great, but that's also to trained her whole life to win "The Proving". A rite of passage to test soldiery, athleticism, stamina, skill and strength. It would not make sense if she had the body of some lazy asshole riding a scooter. So obviously, she has the body of an athlete. The game designers can hardly be blamed for the simple fact that is attractive. The standards of character development should not only suit the character, but also make sense otherwise. So, in the interest of fairness, I have to admit Velvet Crowe does not look like a formally 16 yo girl, starving in a dank pit for three years, despite being an actually brilliant character; I hate to admit it, but there are definitely double standards.

Well, that's an alarming connection to make. First, you'll never find a 5yo with a DDD rack (It's a thought that's as disturbing as it is confusing and I don't want to even attempt to picture it) and just because somebody offers that kind of attention to an obviously sexualized character does not make that individual is a pervert. All it means is that character is obviously sexualized. My Avatar on this forum is Velvet from Tales of Berseria, a character I love, not because her default costume has her "stuff" half hanging out, but because she's great character. If there is someone out there who's only interested in Velvet because of how she's presented then... yeah, I do feel a need to tell them to grow up, but it's still not their fault the developers designed her that way. I don't mind a character being sexy, I just prefer it when he/she is also a fleshed out, real character. One does not have to be pug ugly to be relatable, even if that is more realistic.

That Lara Croft literally made the cover of Playboy, and I can totally understand why. It wasn't the pixelated tits, it was because the character being a fantasy treading closer to a young man's reality that any other character had in mainstream media. A hot, empowering, witty, big titted, smart action heroine that was way more relatable to the 90's geek than any movie or TV show had even got close to at the time. That's what gave her appeal, that's what made her attractive, not just the design (And mean design, I do mean what was in the minds of those that created her, graphical limitations aside) that was ultimately meant to have sex appeal from day one. The new Lara is way deeper and more complex, and she needed to be. She's still as smart and determined as the original Lara Croft, but with a greater sense of vulnerability and maturity. She just feels that much more real and fleshed out. The design is still that of a beautiful young woman, but not a fantasy like the old Lara was intended to be. Sorry, but you're wrong. Whilst I personally would not list the old Lara as a bad protagonist, more a product of her time, the new Lara is by far superior.