Crazycrab

For open world games 12 hours would be pathetic of course and for online games it's pretty much infinite/as long as you can be bothered. For a single player, linear, mission by mission based designed game 10 - 12 hours is fairly substantial. Most games like that are around 6 to 8 hours for a single playthrough. The Last of Us is about 12 hours and I certainly wouldn't describe that game as short or easy!

No, that's third person again. The story is being told from an outside perspective. Second would be telling the story prom the perspective of the Goblin, something like "I awoke to see the him (the protagonist) standing over me with a Warhammer that he then swung into my face". The next sentence them might be something like "I heard the sound of a Warhammer crunching some other Goblin's skull so I went to investigate. As soon as I opened the door I caught a glimpse of him as he swung his Warhammer over my head.". I know it's a little confusing, I think the best, and one of only very few examples of 2nd person in action is in one level of Driver: San Francisco. In this mission you are driving away from the enemies in a another car following you, but you're doing it from the 1st person perspective of the other car: Second person perspective that is very rarely used any media because it's very complicated difficult to write.

Walking on the moon is something that people are already able to do, it's just that it's a very expensive pain in the arse getting there. So I'd pick being able to walk on water is because it's something I can't do and it would actually be useful.

No, that's still 3rd person. 2nd person would be looking at and controling your troops through the eyes of your enemy.

I like Chess, it's great to play but imo it's not so great to watch, especially for people who don't understand it.

It's unlikely but I'd like to see motorsports at the Olympics. It doesn't need to be the ultra-expensive stuff like F1, supercars or world rally. More like rallycross, karts or maybe a hill climb event.

I seen the trailer on the recent PlayStation Showcase and it looks pretty decent, sort of a cross between Bayonetta and NieR: Automata but certainly nothing particularly ground breaking. Much like @Shagger I don't see much evidence of the controversy your talking about. Just a few comments that the character design is generic and... It absolutely is. Don't believe me, check out this reaction video and pay particular attention to what is said at around 7 and then 35 seconds in: At 10 seconds - "Oh... I recognize her, why do I recognize her?" At 35 seconds - "Why does she look so familiar?" I'll tell you why, it's because it's same cute, sexy, slim supermodel we've seen a million times before, the very definition of playing it safe. THAT'S what some people including Alex from DF are being critical of. Not because the design is sexy, but because it's generic and uninspired. Personally I don't really give a shit. If a poster for 13 year old to jerk off to is what they wanna do then fine. They could ship the collector's edition with a bottle of her bath water and unwashed panties for all I care (I'm not sure how they would achieve that but whatever). What I don't get is why you and others in a certain corner of the internet have such a problem when others say they want something different? Why does it always have some kind of lefty political agenda? They keep arguing for the freedom of creative design for developer's, yet when they exercise that right to make characters "less attractive" they throw their toys out the pram! I guess what I'm try to say to everyone who are making complaints about Thor being to fat, Aloy being to ugly, the main character from Project EVE being to sexy or any other design from any other game you could apply any of these bullshit arguments to is...

I'm surprised that EA keep the servers for any of their s̶p̶o̶r̶t̶s̶ online gambling games open for more than a few years.

Actually to honest most depictions of Greek gods seem to have abs... ...but that's not the point. The point is as stated by the OP is that the Norse Thor had a belly.

In case you wanted some further insight into this from a very reliable source, here's a GameSpot interview with British Powerlifting Champion Darren McCormac. He says and I quote "Like it or not, God of War's Thor is the peak of male performance". https://www.gamespot.com/amp-articles/god-of-war-ragnaroks-thor-is-the-peak-of-male-performance-powerlifting-champion-says/1100-6496246/ I've no issue with Chris Hemsworth or Hollywood's interpretation of Marvel's Thor, it's reasonably accurate to it's own source. But Marvel's Thor is NOT the Norse Thor, it never was. I appreciate that Santa Monica Studio's have gone back to Thor's Norse roots for the design, which I think looks totally badass in its own way. I'm really tired of this kind of "It's not hot by the unrealistic standard set by Hollywood therefore bad" idiocy. The same thing happened with Aloy when the Horizon Forbidden West debuted. Does anyone know what a human being looks like anymore? Apparently some people just want their characters to look like genetically perfect freaks. Jezz... What the fuck is wrong with humanity!

Couldn't agree more with you more. I think that is by far the biggest problem with open world games right now, their getting to big. They put areas of interest between miles and miles of mostly empty space. They need to do what games like Horizon Zero Dawn and Skyrim did, which is make the best use of the space that it's got. When you make your map dense and effective it doesn't need to be massive. At no point when playing these games did I ever feel it was "to small", despite the maps being a fraction of the size of Zelda BOTW or some of the more recent Assassin's Creed games. These titles (BOTW especially) frustrated the hell out of me at times because of their oversized maps. It's like most of these devs have this obsession with making their game world's as big as possible as if it's a competition on who's got the biggest dick. It needs to stop and they need to back the fundamentals of what makes exploring an open be world fun... because it's NOT size.

I got another one. After the release of Aliens Colonial Marines Gearbox was heavily criticised for... pretty much everything about it. One such aspect was behaviour of the Xenomorphs and other AI controlled characters. A critical part the AI code is the "tether" command, which dictates the area the AI controlled character needs to move into, point their guns towards and so on. It was discovered by users on forums years after the game was released that a part of the code had a miss spelling. Instead of "tether" is was "teather" which is why the AI didn't work properly! After the blunder was discovered Gearbox tried to make light of the situation by listing a job advertisement for a "proof reader'. Considering how much this game had pissed everyone off already I don't think many people were laughing with them.

Honestly most of the time I barely notice.

There will definitely be differing opinions about this. Me personally I would say the retro cut off is with the end of the PS1/N64 era.

Occasionally you get some original IP's that pull through but most AAA publishers consider them to much of a risk. I appreciate when it when a publisher has the balls to it and there are instances where it has been very successful. I think PlayStation seem to be doing the best in this regard with at the likes of Horizon Zero Dawn, Bloodborne and Ghost of Tsushima all being big commercial and critical hits. I don't think doing something original is as much of a risk as these companies seem to think.

I don't really like any external noise when playing including music from outside the game. I find it distracting and it takes me out of the world of the game. I always play with the game's soundtrack because that's the experience how it was intended by the developer.

Ok I found it now:

That's the main reason I never got into them, they were so fumbling and awkward. Thankfully the latter games improved on this dramatically.

This year has been pretty dry. Tales of Arise Just Released, Far Cry 6 is around the corner... Is there anything else?

I can't quite put my finger on it but something feels a little off about this trailer... It think it something about the sound design, it's kinda quiet and certain things like explosions don't seem to have much impact.

Different consoles could have wildly different designs for their controllers back in the day, but now they all have the same basic configuration. Handles on each side, twin sticks, triggers, shoulder buttons, 4 face buttons and a d-pad. It's just the layouts that are a little different.

When I'm bored Solitaire is a nice little time waster on my phone.

Before someone misquotes me again I should probably give my opinion on the topic. I'm okay with oversized weapons for the most part. If Final Fantasy 7 wants me to believe that Cloud can spin a sword the size of him over his head then... Okay. It's all about context, is the world of game supposed to be realistic or a fantasy setting with it's own rules. As long as it's consistent within the world itself I'm fine.

I know you weren't refering to Cloud's Buster Sword and I never referred to it. I just wanted to clarify the facts. I didn't want the weapon of one of my nation's most revered historical figures to fall into what is a very common misconception, especially since you litteraly asked and tagged me. I even went to the trouble of pointing out the design differences in a Claymore to The Master Sword Replica that you have because, since you have one, I thought you would know what I was talking about: Claymore: The Master Sword... ...Has no such taper, which is why it would be much more ungainly and impractical in real life. I run under the assumption that aren't stupid enough to think that it would, which is why I don't bother to mention it specifically. Do I REALLY need to explain in that much detail or be that specific for you to not to call me out for being right? If you don't want a dose of historical accuracy then don't ask.

This might be surprising to some but actual historical Claymores, despite being 4.5 to 5ft long were not very heavy, around 5-6 pounds or 2.5 to 3kg. That's less than a typical bag of shopping, a child could easily pick one up and skilled swords person could even use it with one hand. This was important because soldiers spent more time going to and from battles than actually being in them. So wanted to keep your equipment as light as possible. They were long blades that tapered both along the width and length of the blade, so the centre of gravity was very close to the handle. They were designed to be carried around because that what they would be doing with them 99% of the time. Even so Claymores were still pretty rare. Most soldiers/armies still favoured the longsword because you still use a shield with it. I think William Wallace might be the only notable warrior that actually used one.