Shagger

I've moved this to the "Mobile" sub-forum in Platforms Discussion.

It's official now, you are part of the problem. This freemium crap that is ruining gaming is happening thanks directly, at least in part, to you. I'd never tell you how to spend your own money, that's your business, but it's people like you who justify all this BS from game publishers through that spending, so it is your fault. EDIT: I'd also like to point out that there wasn't any need to point out that 2018 was four years ago, we are capable of figuring that out.

What is wrong with you? He literally said he played for an hour! You really couldn't care less if you say something stupid, just so long as it's something.

I've thought about it, I don't think there is any games that make me feel that way. I want a satisfying conclusion to a story, but that doesn't mean it needs to be a happy one.

Pokemon - This Time It's Personal and I'll Be Back to Fuck 'em Up Edition.

This thread has been locked at the request of the OP @kingpotato on the account of this thread becoming yet another victim of post farming. And of course, it's all the usual suspects.

I voted for Streaming (I have Gamepass, but only use it on PC), PC, PS4, 2000's retro and 90's retro. I have use a Switch and XBox consoles, but not recently.

Sorry, I hit the "enter" button by mistake before I put in everything. It should be fine now.

I thought I would give us all the opportunity to see what planforms we at VGR tend to play our games. You obviously don't have to, but please share what you play on in the pole and tell us why in comments below.

Not gonna lie, a lot of good stuff there. A Plague Tale: Requiem, Hellblade 2, Starfeild, Avowed and Quake peek my interest

I'm locking this thread. This is just the same people dancing around and repeating the points over and over to farm posts.

You are not alone. I hated that game with a passion. It somehow looked worse than the original with really muddy, dull graphics and it looked somebody had done something private to the camera lens. Pretty surprising considering all the recycled assets, like bosses from the first game we saw die coming back for no reason and with no explanation. The game just lazily executed and felt sluggish and uninspiring to play. You can tell Capcom, likely surprised by Devil May Cry's success, just shat something out quick to cash in.

I'd hardly call myself a Final Fantasy expert, I didn't play a Final Fantasy game until FFX, but given that up until FFX-2 no two games actually shared the same universe, talking about how the games differ from thier processors seems a little arbitrary. I think this is especially true when talking about the games that have come out since FFX as Square Enix have not rested on thier morals and brought out something drastically different each time not just in terms of lore and setting, but in terms of the gameplay itself. How one feels about about each game will inevitably differ drastically each time, that's the cost of this diverse creative approach, but It's still a good thing overall. Even with the games where I don't like the approach (for example I hated the levelling system in FFXII until we we got "The Zodiac Age"), I can at least appreciate them for trying to bring something fresh. What I really don't understand, and please nobody tell me, I DON'T want to be told, is what it takes to make a so-called "true" Final Fantasy game. Maybe it's because I came into the series late and only really played the games from FFX onwards, but the very idea of a "true" Final Fantasy sounds alien to me. I don't want a purest Final Fantasy experience, to many JRPG franchises stubbornly stick to years old formulas as it is, we don't need Final Fantasy to do the same thing.

I'm still having difficulty understanding what you're trying to say because that is barley better than other post. I have went back and re-read both posts, came back to this post to make alterations, read you posts again, repeat, several times and I'm still not sure what it is you're trying to say. Why do you say "Lara acted a movie"? I'm going to assume you meant "Lara acted in a movie", but surely not as Lara is the character, not the actor and I find it hard to believe anyone could make that mistake. But then, judging buy you say in your first post; It also looks like you think Lara Croft is the actor, but again, surely not! My own dibelief that somebody could make that mistake is at least part of the reasonwhy I found the post so difficult to understand. so I have to admit, that's on me. Somebody thinking Lara is the actor just doesn't register easily with me. However, then your second post seems to reaffirm that. I think (and sincerely hope) it's the odd chance or words you have used that's giving that impression, but on the odd chance you do believe Lara is the actor, here's the basics. Lara Croft didn't "act" in anything, she's the character. Tomb Raider always was, and primarily still is, a video game before the movie adaptations were made. The first two films made based of the early Tomb Raider games starred Angelina Jolie in 2001 then 2003, then more recently in 2018 there was a new Tomb Raider movie based off the rebooted video game series starring Alicia Vikander. In the games Lara Croft has been voiced acted by serval different actresses, most recently Rachel Appleton. With that out of way, what is the "Tomb Raider video game show"? Are you trying to refence the one of of the movies (if so, what one, there's three of them), one of the games (There 15 of them in my steam library alone, and I know there's more, especially if you include the mobile games) or are you refencing some TV show I don't know about? It's all so vague and grammatically confusing. When its a franchise like this, you have to specify what movie and what games you're talking about because there's so many of them. Some of these games even have ports on modern mobile devices, so have to be precise, otherwise it is impossible to understand what it is your saying even without the grammatical problems. If you don't know, then you probably should not have made the comment in the first place. You played your first Tomb Raider game, whatever game it was, on mobile, then played played a Tomb Raiser game on console, I got that, but again with this franchise you have to be specific and say what games otherwise it's impossible for the one reading it to have a point of reference. Because some of these games have posts on both, it could even have been the same game both times, that's how vague you post was. There are no recognisable points of reference anywhere in anything that you posted. As far as I can tell, you have either got really mixed up with who and what Lara Croft is, flat don't know what games you were even playing (Which again brings up the question why you posted at all) or you have use some really weird wording and grammar that, along with the lack of points of reference, has drowned what you were trying to say. Whatever the case may be, I do know I've wasted enough of my time on this.

It's pretty bold of you to call out other people's posts for being hard to understand when that's what you post just a couple of minutes later. You weren't wrong in that other thread, but that's not the point.

I'm gonna to have to agree with @Justin11, that really isn't very clear. Please send a revised post to me via PM so I can edit it for you and do it soon, otherwise I'll have remove this post.

I can see a lot parallels here. The article talks about how this keeps the soldier's mind sharp and training at the forefront of his/her thoughts when not on duty, but I also think butting into the situations in the game without the fear that would be associated with that situation and help them bring that to job. This could be similar thing for F1 drivers as in a game they might push closer to the limits than they might do in a real car and help them find some extra lap time in the simulation to bring to the track. That along with the aforementioned keeping the mind sharp to the job when not in the car. That makes sense to me.

I don't know how hard you're looking, but they're really not similar. Like at all. The body's different finish, the fret inlets and pick guard are a different style, the body of the guitar itself is an entirely different shape and they're a different brand (Eddie's is a Gibson, while Joel's is custom Taylor that was designed especially for the game). The two guitars technically aren't even the same functionally as Eddie's is a 21 fret, whilst Joel's is a larger, 24 fret model. The only things that I can see that's similar between the two is the finish of the fretboard with that dark, mahogany look, and the chrome finish of the tuning pegs, and that's about it.

Weirdly enough, right after typing that I did actually find a story on Planet F1 that is does connect the real sport with games in a rather interesting way. Former F1 World Champion Damon Hill has theorised that current McLaren driver Daniel Riccardo may be struggling the way he is right rough now because of his younger rival's exposure and close involvement with video games and racing E-Sports. There are several drivers, like defending World Champion Max Verstappen and Riccardo's team mate Lando Norris, frequently play the games, spend a lot of time on sim's and compete in racing E-Sports. After Michal Schumacher, drivers really needed to start young in karting to develop into the F1 talent we seen today. Michel's path to Formula 1 was revolutionary at the time and set the trend for how the F1 talent of today get into the sport. While success in Karting and lower league open cockpit racings is still very important now, It does sound plausible to me that this new generation of drivers may be gaining an edge with E-Sports, sim' racing and video games that older drivers have not. Full Story From Planet F1 here.

That's quite enough about real world F1. This thread is supposed to be about the video games. If you want to talk about real life motorsports, do so in the Sports Sub-Forum under General Chat, I did find a motorsport's thread eventually. Every time I have to put thread back on track it's always on account of the same people. Tell me @Boblee, @Justin11 and @Heatman, why is it always you guys along with one or two others?

I can't say I fully understand the problem, but I did find this video and I can't any reason why this wouldn't work with either version of the game.

I can tell you exactly why EA have never (and almost certainly will never) port/remaster Burnout Legends or any Burnout game other than Paradise for modern hardware, it's because they want the arcade racer as it was to stay dead. They want to push Burnout Paradise and it's concepts as if this is how how it's meant to be. They don't want a game focuses on local multiplayer rather than online. They don't want play to progresses at the kind of pace older Burnout did and would much rather force people to pay or grind. In short, they don't want to remind the wold how these games used to play because it doesn't suit thier insidious business models.

Couldn't agree with you less. They are an unsustainable, unstable and unsecure investment that's already collapsing. It's essentially a pyramid scheme where people make money by roping people underneath them. Those so=called "game" you describe are how these people rope you in to themselves and should be avoided.

I know this is going to sound unbelievably arrogant on my part and I apologise in advance, but Burnout Paradise is a piece of shit, and people who say otherwise don't know any better, they just don't. They've been poisoned by the concepts that game made popular, like the abandonment of local multiplayer, live service platforms and open world racing (Other games have that better since then, but it was still a stupid idea to begin with). Both Burnout and the arcade racer are dead thanks to that game, and I will never forgive EA for it.

In answer to the actual topic, Some Game's journalists ae journalists first and gamers second, but I don't really feel that's that's the most most of the time, especially these days There is of course gamergate and controversy's like the Kyne and Lynch 2 and Driver 3 situations that shed light into flawed structure of games journalism by being too dependant on the cooperate game's industry itself for survival, but especially since gamergate I fel things have change a little. I see outlets, like IGN for example, being a lot less reserved and more prepared to bad behaviour from the industry in recent years. As for a journalists gaming skill, I really don't think they need to be MGL to have a worthwhile opinion on a game. On the contrary, I actually believe it's better for journalists and reviewers especially to be closer to the ground as they an offer an option that is on the level of the typical gamer. They have to know what they are talking about, yes, but that doesn't mean mastering a game. There are exceptions, of course, where it is reasonable to have the journalist be on another lever like if they report on E-Sports or if they are putting out tech advice (Looking at YOU The Verge after that embarrassing PC Build Guide video). But overall I do feel that journalists being around the level of regular gamers is a good thing and I do not believe that most games journalists are worse than us. I've written a few reviews in my time (that can call be found on the forum), and I'm I'd never claim to be that good at game, but that doesn't mean I cant put together a respectable opinion.