Shagger

I didn't even know GTAIV had an online multiplayer. Well, you learn something new everyday. I guess Rockstar didn't push it as hard as they did with GTAV, none of those juicy microtransactions to use to exploit people with. Back to the topic, I can't actually think of any game I bought new but couldn't play right away with the expectation of No Man's Sky. I'd like to think that's the case because such things are so rare, but honestly I think I just got really lucky.

Back in the 90's, Tournament Fighters existed that took refence from all sorts of things. There were the same, really, just clones of Street Fighter 2 Turbo with the skins of other licenced characters, but that also made a lot of them half decent. Now that I think of it, it's kind of a shame that doesn't really happen anymore.

All kinds of want. That's all I have to say.

Honestly, you are not one of the people that come to mind. No reason to be so hard on yourself.

Do you know how many posts you have made on this thread? Well, I'll show you. That's 43, in case you lost count. You felt compelled to tell the VGR forum that played FIFA on no less than 11 occasions, for example. And to cap it all off, what did you post just today? Good to know! You're playing FIFA22! Because there's no way we could have realized that. Needles to say, this is ridiculous. If anyone needs a better example of what I'm on about in this thread here when I talk about posting anything just to post something, then this is it. @Head_Hunter, you clearly could not care less about what you post, just so long it's something. It's a post. It counts. Well, good for you, but this in not what being active on VGR means. It's not just you of course, there are others who treat these these like a text chain for themselves and thier friends I personally will not allow this madness to continue any longer. This thread is locked.

This is another example posting in a blitz. Not only is the post itself grammatically all over the place and clearly not typed with much care, it's not actually got anything to with the topic at hand. I'm glad you decided to not get into P2E games, but posts this off wouldn't happen if somebody was interested in saying something valuable rather than saying anything at all. Stop, take moment, and think.

And the same thing to everyone else. If @Jayson brings up something provocative, but has nothing to do with the topic at hand, it is an attempt to distract you and derail a thread because he hasn't got the balls to actually face other people's points head on. It's cowardly and trolling. If he does that again in this, or any other thread, ignore him, repot him and, like I said @Jayson... I. PROMICE. TROUBLE. Is everyone clear?

This is just another example of you ducking and diving to avoid the good points others have made so can pretend they aren't there. I am not going to waste any more of my time explaining to you why I'm not prepared to put with this anymore. Instead, I am going to make this very simple. Stay on topic, or I promise trouble. Is that clear enough?

Personally, I don't see a difference, If a story has an emotional impact then it has an emotional impact. It doesn't matter what medium they use to tell it, be it game, movie, TV show or book.

The invite system on Discord is just so you can invite people to join that sever, it's nothing to do with creating an account. I suspect the reason you had so much trouble is because you didn't have an account. Still, I'm surprised to find you had so much trouble, Discord has always been pretty pain free for me.

The only person in this thread that has presented any kind of scientific evidence on this to his high credit is @Crazycrab and based on what he's posted, @Jayson can't simply say it's wrong with a single sentence not referencing anything. Not to mention that he has been one of the most poisonous, insulting deflecting and arrogant individuals when it comes to debate this this that we have ever had. When somebody makes a point he can't challenge, he ignores then opens a new thread on the same thing and makes the same points again hoping that nobody will remember what asked before. But of course, everybody does because we're not stupid. So no, he cannot post a single, dismissive, arrogant sentence in the face of somebody like @Crazycrab who obviously spent a considerable amount of time researching and developing his point of view and expect to be treated the same, that just isn't how this works. He can't do what always does and just ignore and disrespect others views and keep ducking everyone like he's the only that can be right. At least you have the common curiously to acknowledge that you don't know everything you need to understand full how transitioning works, but at least you clearly know something about the actual subject matter, and I commend you for that. Even as a mod, it's part of my job to defend his right to express himself, but he has showed that to precisely nobody unless they agree with him without question. It is also my right to allow everyone around him the same right to express themselves, so I hop you can imagine just how badly this guy has damaged my patience. An overdose was cited as probable cause, but never fully proven. What is known is that it wasn't steroids, it was prescription drugs.

The PS4 does have it was well, as do a lot of PC launchers and other consoles. It's actually quite common. Don't get me wrong, I do like it. There's something very satisfying about knowing how much of a game you've completed.

I don't want to be rude, but I don't think there is a nice way to ask this. As one of the worst offenders who thinks that's the answer, why don't you use the general discussion sub-forum like that?

I understand that. Sadly there has been so much of that going that most of the long running threads have been affected, mostly down to same group of people using the fourm like a text chain. I don't know if you are aware, but we are looking into a solution. Check out this thread for the most up to date information, but the answer is not to just lock all these threads and replace, not until we have an actual answer to the problem because it will likely just happen again.

@kingpotato I've merged the threads and edited the title of the original post to show a more "up-to-date" title. I also copied what was the opening post of the thread into it so that all the information is available on the opening post. Let me know if you're happy with the changes and inform me of any amendments you wish to make. @Heatman is is necessary to change the thread title and anyone who does an internet search for forum thread detailing "Plus Essential", for example, will be directed to the correct thread. A thread title also forum the thread's URL, so it has to be accurate. Good advice for everyone, put thought into the title of any threads you start.

I don't think this need a new thread. Yes, there is some official info out now, but it's a still a discussion about the same thing. What I'll do is merge the new thread into this thread then change the title of this one as this is the original.

You clearly didn't bother to read the rest of the thread, so why should anyone care what you have to say?

I couldn't really get into Watchdogs. Can't say for sure why, but the first game wasn't a polished experience and got boring for me. I' also certain it's not the first game that allowed you to control other NPC's. I know of a game called Mindjack on the Xbox 360 that had a very similar mechanic. It was apparently crap, but that's beside the point.

Thanks for the reply. I don't think more mods is the answer, though. It's not that we're overwhelmed, is that with the rules and guidance in place as it is, there isn't a great deal we can really do about it. We cant issue bans or suspensions to people for posting too much. Technically, nobody is doing anything wrong. All we can do is try and advise people and help them improve on thier posting habits, but we can't force anybody to do or not do anything. If we did go that route, nobody would be obligated to use it. It's an option for people to "chat" on without flooding the forum. The suggestion is noted. There are tweaks that could be made here and there, but this is ultimately about trying to encourage better posting habits and/or giving space on the forum for irrelevant chat. I don't really see the way the way those sub-forums are organised as a route cause of the problem, especially since it appears to be General Gaming" with most of the issues I hear you on that. I remember locking thread not long ago that was initially a query about how long a Dualshock 4 battery should lase, but the same handful of people kept the thread rambling on for 16 pages with mostly repeated and/or off topic statements. It's people just not caring about what they post, just so long as it's something, anything, as often as possible. I here that too and understand completely how frustrating that can be. Not only do these people bump down everyone else's posts, the same people who seem to interact with each other as well. We will find an answer. We are glad to have you here.

I'll move this to the "Video Games" sub forum as this is about a specific game. I haven't played this yet, but it does look interesting. The PC specks a a little daunting though, but I suppose that's to be expected for a true next gen game.I'm probably in a "wait for sale" place with regard to it. Tell us more when you get further in.

Let me get to the point. There is no reason whatsoever that needed to be three individual posts. You could have read through the unread posts then tagged each quote, added them all into one post, then replied. This is just another example posting in a complete rush just to up the count. Quote that, type something, anything out, post, next. I looked at your activity during this "spurt" and in the space of half an hour you made 30 posts. You can't seriously expect me to believe you were posting with forethought and care when you're one post a minute. Nobody, and I mean nobody with any authority on this forum told anyone that being active meant posting as much as humanly possible in the shortest space of time. This is what I'm talking about when it comes to this. What we are seeing here is a classic example of somebody posting anything just to post something. It's much better to have a handful of well thought out and carefully selected replies then just posting anything anywhere. Seriously people, this has got to stop. Please, quality over quantity. I'm not asking for much.

Moving this to "Video Games" as this topic is in reference to one, specific games.

I think a lot of things shouldn't be discussed on the Discord server if that's what was decided. @DC's concerns about traffic moving of the website is a legitimate concern. This would only work if posts on the Discord sever were limited to what we DON'T want discussed on the threads. The more impulsive chat points about games or whatever that don't really work as full on forum posts.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD I wasn't crazy about BtS either, but for a very specific reason. I just don't buy the relationship it portrayed between Chloe and Rachel. Before somebody goes insane, no, it has nothing to do with the fact that they are both girls. I will say doubting that one of the characters was actually gay is a part of it ( I don't fully buy that with Rachel, but I'm not gonna flat out deny it either). It's not like I can't see them together, it just doesn't make sense for me to believe it given the events of the first game. The other, and possibly larger part of it is how forced the relationship between the two actually is in BtS. For a start, I do 100% believe that Chloe was attracted to Rachel, maybe even in love with her. There is enough evidence in the original game to support that notion. This very well could have been more than a friendship to Chloe. The problems begin with the question "Did Rachel feel the Same?" and trust me when I tell you that, based of the first game, that is a resounding no. Not only did Rachel have a relationship with Frank that clearly meant something to her, there was even sketchy evidence that something happened between her and Mark Jefferson, although Mark was in a position to easily manipulate her given how Rachel felt he could help with her aspiring acting/modelling career, so we don't know for sure exactly. It's perfectly possible that Rachel was bisexual or pansexual (I'm fairly sure Chloe isn't 100% gay either), like I said, the characters sexuality isn't the problem, the problem is more about Rachels actions and behaviour. Now, given that Chloe and Rachel's relationship is portrayed in such a natural and deep way in BtS, only one of two things can be true if you buy both games plots: Rachel is a bitch and serial cheat. Rachel used Chole, same thing really. I would bet my last pound that anyone who would defend this would not buy either of those facts, but at least one (or possibly both of them) have to be true, there is no avoiding it. And anyone who played these game will agree that is not how Rachel is portrayed, especially in BtS. The original game actually does support this at least a little given how angry Chloe got when she found out about Rachel and Frank. Both games do show evidence of at least some manipulative and self centred behaviour on Rachel's part. However, Chloe's reaction to Rachel and Frank could also be explained through her own insecurities about loving Rachel even though Rachel didn't lover her back. Or even her just feeling betrayed simply by the fact Rachel didn't tell her about Frank. And honestly, I buy either one of those before I buy the idea Chloe discovered Rachel cheated on her. Before the Storm clearly does not want you to think of Rachel so negatively, that is without doubt, but the facts are the facts, facts that BtS often chooses to ignore. To summarise, the first game, at least for me, greater supports the idea that what Chloe and Rachel had was a friendship, not a romantic relationship. I'm not saying it's impossible that there was a two way romantic connection, I certainly buy that Chloe was attracted to Rachel, but that just isn't what I believed about them after I had finished the game. The fact Max can romance Chloe in the original as well, only serves to strengthen that point of view for me. You don't fall in love with someone else whilst focused on finding out the tragic fate of the person you loved before, that just isn't realistic. I am not against the idea that Chloe and Rachel were a couple, but the happy-go-lucky, fairy-tale manner it's portrayed in BtS just doesn't fit. What makes it worse is now Deck Nine forced, and I mean really forced, the player into this. And I can sum it up with one screenshot just how forced this was. For a bit of background. In this scene, Chloe and Rachel are walking home (I think to Rachel's house) after Chloe helped Rachel with a production that happened that evening at Blackwell Academy. To summarise and paraphrase the dialogue, Rachel want's to know what Chloe would like in exchange for her help. These are the options presented. Lets go through these options. The bracelet. Rachel's bracelet is a memento from her estranged mother, so not only would taking this this be pretty cruel on Chloe's part, but also completely redundant as we know that Rachel eventually gives the bracelet to Frank anyway. So this is not only an unappealing choice, but an utterly pointless one as well. The tattoo. More specifically, in this option Chole suggests they get cut together. And just like the bracelet, this is completely redundant as we know from the first game that this happens anyway. Don't kid yourselves, Deck Nine knew what they were doing with this. With these two options, it was a major twist to the arm to do the only option that isn't entirety pointless in the cannon. The kiss. And it is a passionate kiss as well, just in case you were wondering. Did I choose this option? Of course I did! it's literally the only one that makes any sense! That is along with how the cannon of Rachel between the two games doesn't actually fit that well is enough proof that of how forced this is as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not even done, there's more. In the original game Max had pretty much two romance options, Warren or Chloe. Both options are just as viable and appealing as the other with Warren being a genuinely likeable character. Is this also true of the alternate romance option for Chloe in BtS? Hello No! Eliot is creep who's barely in the game anyway. I'm not actually sure if it's actually possible to allow him and Chloe to get that close the game at all even if you tried, but I do doubt it. Either way, you don't want to. He's just another option that isn't really an option, much like the example above. Before the Storm to felt like a fan fiction, and more specifically, a fan fiction where somebody who shipped Chloe and Rachel wanted to make it cannon. And you know what, I don't think that's far from the truth either. The original was developed by Dontnod, and Before the Storm was developed by Deck Nine. Yes, Dontnod gave thier blessing and the two teams even worked under the same publisher, but to me there's too much of what they wanted in the story and not enough choice for the player in the end for me to consider it a good prequel. And it's not just Chloe and Rachel either, there's other things that don't quite add up, although that is the main one.

I know that many of you have been expressing frustration over how "spammy" (for lack of a better word) some sections of the forum are becoming by a handful of people using the threads more like a chat. The forum gets flooded with off-topic posts on threads that really should have long since died but keep getting bummed because some people feel compiled to reply to them with anything. This thread is not about pointing fingers or blame, it is just about how to better organise the forum so that the threads can be more welcoming for the whole community. So people can post, for example, without worrying about there posts getting bummed down by people posting barley relevant, low value replies just to up posts counts. Four possible idea come to me. A "shitposting" sub forum for people to, well, "shitpost". A thread for memes, jokes and other irrelevant dribble to have fun with without impacting other areas of the forum. A re-focus on forum games. Upping post counts is essentially what these types of threads are for, but almost nobody on VGR tends to use them. For this to work, it would necessitate a change of habit that, to be honest, I don't really see happening, so I'm less sure about this one. A chat box added to the forum itself. This works well in theory, but could be difficult and time consuming to implement, not to mention hard to monitor and moderate, which is why I'd personally prefer... Opening a VGR Discord server. As well as a place for live chat, it would also open up the community to the opportunity to group up and actually play games together. Now, @DC, I remember we have had this discussion before and you didn't want to do this because you feared it would move traffic off the website, and I truly understand that, but this CAN be run and moderated in such a way that it would work, and may even attract new people to VGR. Still, that is just one man's thoughts. If you have anything to add or if you want to push one of these ideas, reply below.