Video Game News and Miscellany

Innovation without support is not innovation. Making the Wii U more like the 3DS with the tablet controller generally did not catch on and only served to hinder the Wii U which, yet again, failed to attract a lot of third party devs looking to take advantage of the functionality and only served to prevent ports from other systems by requiring that each game had tablet functionality. It was clearly a hindrance to the system as a whole and it made otherwise excellent games (Star Fox Zero) lesser by it's forced integration. A more traditional system would be a better seller and have more games worth buying.

I'm not TOTALLY against Nintendo doing mobile games... but I want them to be more like the games they release on their own consoles and not afterthought/also rans. Pokemon GO is great; it brings the game into the real world, gets people talking to each other, and is going to be getting additional features in the coming months to make it more like the handheld titles. But this Mario endless runner is just that: an endless runner with a Mario skin. How does that set the game apart from something like Jetpack Joyride, Temple Run 2, and Canabalt? Hell, SONIC has one (Sonic Dash). It's just a weak choice on their point...

If they wanted to be bold, they'd release Pokemon Sun/Moon on mobile.
The Mario thing was a quick stop gap. They were (supposedly) supposed to release an Animal Crossing and Fire Emblem mobile game this fall but they got pushed back.

Also, they aren't going to take bread and butter games away from the 3DS at this point. People are more likely to pay $40 for a 3DS game than a mobile game. Also we've already established that Nintendo doesn't actually *own* Pokemon, remember the stock market fiasco with Go? ;)
 
The Mario thing was a quick stop gap. They were (supposedly) supposed to release an Animal Crossing and Fire Emblem mobile game this fall but they got pushed back.

Also, they aren't going to take bread and butter games away from the 3DS at this point. People are more likely to pay $40 for a 3DS game than a mobile game. Also we've already established that Nintendo doesn't actually *own* Pokemon, remember the stock market fiasco with Go? ;)
It's not that Nintendo doesn't own Pokemon Go... it just shares the rights (and thus the profits) with a couple other companies. It would be more apt to say that they own like 1/3rd of Pokemon GO.

I hadn't heard of the Animal Crossing and Fire Emblem games. Those seem like the perfect franchises for them to do stuff on mobile.
 
I don't know what the solution is as far as Nintendo's infrastructure is concerned; I just know that most of the upcoming games don't interest me and I'm not alone. Their presence on the Wii U may have been a hindrance to some, but I have a Wii U and that's not why I avoided Yoshi's Wolly World or got bored with the new Pikmin.

I hear people saying 2017 is going to be the 3DS's best year since 2013, but I don't see why.

As long as not having a PS4 Pro isn't the same as not having a PS4 when they were doing PS3/PS4 releases (i.e. PS3 versions were absolute garbage, not just by graphics, but gameplay issues, bugs), then I don't care about the graphics differences.
 
The key question for me is whether having the Pro will simply improve framerate in games where the developer either hasn't locked it at 30, or it drops below 30 because reasons anyways (Bloodborne). Obviously, it won't improve textures or anything like that (because nothing else in the game has changed), but nominally, there should be performance increases.
 
The key question for me is whether having the Pro will simply improve framerate in games where the developer either hasn't locked it at 30, or it drops below 30 because reasons anyways (Bloodborne). Obviously, it won't improve textures or anything like that (because nothing else in the game has changed), but nominally, there should be performance increases.
I have a feeling it won't change anything for games that weren't designed with it in mind. I'm more concerned about whether future games will only have the Pro in mind and then run like dogshit on the normal PS4.

I'm not buying another Playstation anytime soon. If they pull shit on PS4-owners in that you need a Pro or your games run poorly, then Sony can get fucked with a wheelbarrow full of Wiimotes, because I'm not having it.
 
Both console manufacturers seem to be moving towards the idea that consoles should be device families, not discrete generations that need whole new games each time.

On the one hand, that is good for people with extended gaming libraries who don't want to be regularly pressured into the newest console just so they can play the newest games. It's also good as a counter to device confusion and audience lock-out.

On the other, adopting the smartphone hardware model as a whole arguably substantially decreases the value of an individual console release, and I think it's reasonable to wonder whether PlayStation and Xbox have the financial structure to support device release schedules of that kind. Furthermore, it is reasonable to then ask, how many previous device generations will new games then support, and what will that do to dev costs? One generation is an easy one, but what about two? Especially if device upgrades start coming annually or semi-annually?
 
Transitioning to "families" wipes away the last big benefit of consoles over PCs. No doubt they're trying, but I doubt people will like it much. "Not upgrading too often" and "being sure it just works" were the bread and butter of console over PC, along with the comfort of gaming from the sofa on a big screen - but that last one's pretty much a non-issue now.
We'll see. Playstation's backward compatibility was a big thing and helped the PS2 back in the day, but perhaps today's consumers are even worse than yesteryear's.
 
Both console manufacturers seem to be moving towards the idea that consoles should be device families, not discrete generations that need whole new games each time.

On the one hand, that is good for people with extended gaming libraries who don't want to be regularly pressured into the newest console just so they can play the newest games. It's also good as a counter to device confusion and audience lock-out.

On the other, adopting the smartphone hardware model as a whole arguably substantially decreases the value of an individual console release, and I think it's reasonable to wonder whether PlayStation and Xbox have the financial structure to support device release schedules of that kind. Furthermore, it is reasonable to then ask, how many previous device generations will new games then support, and what will that do to dev costs? One generation is an easy one, but what about two? Especially if device upgrades start coming annually or semi-annually?
The difference is cost. I upgrade my phone every two years and because I have a plan, it's relatively cheap to do so. Pretty sure Sony and Microsoft aren't planning to hand out any discounts. Not to mention, usually stuff you move from your old phone still works on your new one. Keeping a PS2, PS3, and PS4 hanging around is ridiculous when we usually do ditch the phone after getting a new one. The consoles are much larger than phones, of course. On top of that, you don't usually have to purchase and repurchase the apps, but here we go with more HD and super-HD releases of older games.

I think you're right that console manufacturers are looking at the smartphone model, but they're idiots if they think it actually applies.

Transitioning to "families" wipes away the last big benefit of consoles over PCs. No doubt they're trying, but I doubt people will like it much. "Not upgrading too often" and "being sure it just works" were the bread and butter of console over PC
Yup. This mobile-centric mindset overtaking some companies is idiotic.
 
I think you're right that console manufacturers are looking at the smartphone model, but they're idiots if they think it actually applies.
It ultimately depends on how they do it. If they keep the same release schedule, with the expectation that the previous gen(s) can still play new games but at reduced performance, I could see it working as they would be pushing games instead of hardware.

But if they try and do incremental upgrades annually, that will pretty much instant fail.
 
It ultimately depends on how they do it. If they keep the same release schedule, with the expectation that the previous gen(s) can still play new games but at reduced performance, I could see it working as they would be pushing games instead of hardware.

But if they try and do incremental upgrades annually, that will pretty much instant fail.
I don't think even every two years would work. And they can't keep expecting previous gens to play the games, because consoles don't work that way. They need to make a specific previous-gen version of the game. "Reduced performance" is putting it nicely; the PS3 versions of Shadow of Mordor and Dragon Age 3 barely work.

They're going to need a pretty heavy price drop to even make it comparable. Spending $400-$500 every two years? No fucking way.
 
I don't think even every two years would work. And they can't keep expecting previous gens to play the games, because consoles don't work that way. They need to make a specific previous-gen version of the game. "Reduced performance" is putting it nicely; the PS3 versions of Shadow of Mordor and Dragon Age 3 barely work.

They're going to need a pretty heavy price drop to even make it comparable. Spending $400-$500 every two years? No fucking way.
What they WANT to do is make plug and play components you can easily just add yourself... but they don't have faith enough that people would understand how this works. You tell the dewchuggers they need to buy THIS widget to play Madden, they're going to ask why the machine can't already play it. You'd see companies doing bundles with the game and part people need to play it and they'd STILL have to hope they knew what to do with it. God help you when the moms start complaining on Christmas Day when little Timmy doesn't have the widget he needs to play the games she bought.

So we're stuck with all in one upgrades instead that cost a fortune. EA had better hope the Madden kids are willing to shell out 200+ bucks every other year to play it.
 
And they can't keep expecting previous gens to play the games, because consoles don't work that way. They need to make a specific previous-gen version of the game. "Reduced performance" is putting it nicely; the PS3 versions of Shadow of Mordor and Dragon Age 3 barely work.
That's because the PS3 had a completely different microarchitecture than the PS4. Not only was the actual hardware different, the CPU instruction set was completely different. Porting from PS4 to PS3 is actually harder than porting from PS4 to PC, because at least the PS4 and most PCs share the same instruction set.

Given public statements around device families, it is currently unlikely that the next console generation or two are going to change that. That opens the door to future games allowing consoles to scale quality to the capabilities of an older device. The trick is going to be automating that such that console gamers don't need to lift a finger (they'd have PCs otherwise), but if the individual console architectures are close enough from generation-to-generation, that's actually not too hard. The difficulty with auto-configurators for performance with PCs is that you have to account for literally thousands of slightly different hardware configurations. For a console family, you'd only have 1 new configuration per generation.

That being said, that means that we're going to have to rely on developers to work with that. A tool is only useful if people use it.

They're going to need a pretty heavy price drop to even make it comparable. Spending $400-$500 every two years? No fucking way.
That's why I think 2 years is too frequent, but 3-4 may be a good sweet spot, given that the last console cycle lasted about 8.
 
That's because the PS3 had a completely different microarchitecture than the PS4. Not only was the actual hardware different, the CPU instruction set was completely different. Porting from PS4 to PS3 is actually harder than porting from PS4 to PC, because at least the PS4 and most PCs share the same instruction set.

Given public statements around device families, it is currently unlikely that the next console generation or two are going to change that. That opens the door to future games allowing consoles to scale quality to the capabilities of an older device. The trick is going to be automating that such that console gamers don't need to lift a finger (they'd have PCs otherwise), but if the individual console architectures are close enough from generation-to-generation, that's actually not too hard. The difficulty with auto-configurators for performance with PCs is that you have to account for literally thousands of slightly different hardware configurations. For a console family, you'd only have 1 new configuration per generation.

That being said, that means that we're going to have to rely on developers to work with that. A tool is only useful if people use it.



That's why I think 2 years is too frequent, but 3-4 may be a good sweet spot, given that the last console cycle lasted about 8.

Watch as people complain about PS4/5/6 ports being crap like PC gamers are now complaining about PC ports.
 
Watch as people complain about PS4/5/6 ports being crap like PC gamers are now complaining about PC ports.

I can't wait to play PS6 game, also available on PS5, but in 15fps


And then a developer will say with a straight face that the human eye can't see beyond 15fps anyway
 
You forgot the cost of rebuying your game library each time.
I'm sure they didn't.

--Patrick
Exactly. Which is why the PS3 is still out; I'm not buying Bioshock again.

I say all this criticism as someone who begged his parents for a 32X back in the day. And got it. And realized Sega sure fooled me.
 
Haven't the mods been a big pain in the ass already?

Like lots of barely functioning shit.[DOUBLEPOST=1473493399,1473493329][/DOUBLEPOST]If Apple can rake idiots for hundreds of dollars a year, I'm sure the console makers think they can too.
 
ARK, the popular early access survival game on steam, is still in beta and hasn't finished making the core game yet. But they have now put out their first piece of paid dlc.

Players of the game are pissed, and in the day since this launched, the player base has dropped nearly 20%
So we can assume after a day that 20% of the player base quit playing & is never coming back? I'll give you that people are pissed, but most of them would probably be pissed at any point to pay for this DLC.

Based on this article from PC Gamer, it's a whole new game area with new biomes, weapons, gear, animals/mounts, etc. All of which players can transfer from the new game area back to the original area.
It is indeed a whole new map & content for the game.

I have been playing this game since January, keep in mind that I'm a filthy console peasant, in what the Xbox calls "Game Preview" mode. You pay roughly half the full release retail price for early access to what amounts to a beta release. This is a fairly new concept, at least with the Xbox, not sure about Steam. I've only done this with one other title - Elite: Dangerous. ED seemed to be a more polished product, but that may be because I came in during the final stages of preview phase. But you run the risk of burning yourself out on the game before it even gets an official release, which was the case with me & ED.

As for Ark, my friends pitched it to me as "Minecraft for adults with dinosaurs." This is somewhat accurate. You don't get the terraforming that I've seen in Minecraft, but there is a great deal of customization in the structures you can build with the resources you gather. Dinosaurs can be tamed for use as personal transport, pack mules, resource gatherers & offense/defense. Depending on whether you're on a PvP or PvE server, certain dinosaurs are a neccessity.

One thing most of the player base is forgetting - there has been an almost steady stream of new content throughout the process. They haven't been content to just "work out the bugs", although perhaps they would have been better off if this was the case. Almost monthly they have has a patch that fixed some issues as well as added new content, usually in the form of new dinos (Allosaurus!! Giant Beaver!), new player structures or equipment (grappling hooks, chemistry table), or new map areas to explore (redwood biome). About 4 months ago, they even released an entire new map available for play (The Center).

So while all the (free) new content seems to be unappreciated by most, the issue still remains that there is still a lot of work to be done on the base game. IMO, most of the issues arise from poor implementation of basic gaming concepts. It's like they hired a bunch of programmers straight out of school, & they're having to write their own code from scratch. Issues with item collusion as it's super easy to get stuck inside of terrain. Losing tamed dinosaurs because they glitch through the ground because the dinosaurs get rendered before the terrain. The inventory UI is unbelievably frustrating, and I don't know who the team leader is on the lighting & shadows department, but they need to be shown the door. Water reflections & lighting/shadows in places like caves do not work that way! Reflection from light sources is a nightmare. Some aspects of the game are so bad it's hard to tell if it's just bad programming or just creative choices... the sun tracks across the sky until sunset at which point... it then speeds BACK across the sky to then turn into a "moon", which tracks across the sky (wanna guess what happens when it's time for sunrise?).

As for the new paid DLC? Think "hard" mode. Water is a scarce resource. Certain dinos that make life easier on the previous maps (Quetzals) aren't available here. I haven't been able to explore much yet since I'm too busy surviving, but metal resources don't appear to be as plentiful, and without the quetzals to haul large amounts of metal ore around, it doesn't matter anyways.

I'm looking forward to being able to mess around with the new DLC some this upcoming week. Keep in mind that you've paid half price (30 bucks) for the original game, & now 20 bucks for the DLC, so you're still getting all that for less that the full retail release. Add to that I think the base game is on sale for even less than 30 bucks right now (I'm not sure, the MS store won't tell me the sale price since I already own it). I've had a lot of fun so far & looking forward to more.
 
Last edited:
I can't speak for consoles, because I rarely use them, but what ARK is doing is typically not tolerated on PC. In fact, there is even question now of it they violated the early access agreement on Steam, because games in early access aren't supposed to have paid extra monetization until they have released.
 
If anyone's playing Fallout 4 on PS4 and planned to mod it eventually, well, sorry, it looks like you won't be able to. Possibly ever.

Same for the remastered version of Skyrim when it comes out.
Earlier in summer, I would've said I don't care. Now that I have a PC that can run Skyrim + mods, I'm not spending the money. If my wife wants to play a super-prettied version that might have less bugs, we can wait until it's $30.

Fallout 4 I already gave up on a while ago.
 
Earlier in summer, I would've said I don't care. Now that I have a PC that can run Skyrim + mods, I'm not spending the money. If my wife wants to play a super-prettied version that might have less bugs, we can wait until it's $30.

Fallout 4 I already gave up on a while ago.
Once you've played a modded Bethesda game, you can't go back.[DOUBLEPOST=1473513425,1473513074][/DOUBLEPOST]
I can't speak for consoles, because I rarely use them, but what ARK is doing is typically not tolerated on PC. In fact, there is even question now of it they violated the early access agreement on Steam, because games in early access aren't supposed to have paid extra monetization until they have released.
Just to expand on this, the additional content they've released for free isn't being ignored, it's expected, because that's what early access means. But the game now and help us beta test it, and you'll get the additional content as we get the game ready for launch. That's why dlc before launch is seen as so outlandish, it's similar to buying a car while it's being built, and then being told the stereo will be an add-on.
 
The 3DS Attack on Titan got bad to middling reviews, but the PS3/PS4 version's been getting more positive reviews, so I decided to check out a video.

The gameplay is exactly the same. It's a new game, but it plays no different; just the graphics are more detailed and you get little reward messages for ... I don't know, killing it more? I get that those little details are nice, but there's no difference in the core game.
 
The 3DS Attack on Titan got bad to middling reviews, but the PS3/PS4 version's been getting more positive reviews, so I decided to check out a video.

The gameplay is exactly the same. It's a new game, but it plays no different; just the graphics are more detailed and you get little reward messages for ... I don't know, killing it more? I get that those little details are nice, but there's no difference in the core game.
Reward messages let you know how you are doing: basically, killing a Titan in as few attacks as possible without missing an attack. Doing better unlocks rewards... costumes, I think.
 
Is anything else of note coming out this year? Skyrim HD has kind of lost some of its luster. All I got left is Pokemon and I guess the X-Com 2 PS4 port.

Anything else you guys are looking forward to? Looks like I get to save my money for graphic novels next year.
 
Is anything else of note coming out this year? Skyrim HD has kind of lost some of its luster. All I got left is Pokemon and I guess the X-Com 2 PS4 port.

Anything else you guys are looking forward to? Looks like I get to save my money for graphic novels next year.
Mafia 3 is coming out soon. I'm at least curious about it.
 
Lemme see...

Divinity: Original Sin II
Five Nights At Freddie's: Sister Location
Mafia III
Civilization VI
Yomawari: Night Alone
Nobunaga's Ambition: Sphere of Influence - Ascension
Dragon Ball: Xenoverse 2
Dishonored 2
Syberia 3
South Park: Fractured But Whole

And that's not even getting into a bunch of big name sequels.
 
Lemme see...

Divinity: Original Sin II
Five Nights At Freddie's: Sister Location
Mafia III
Civilization VI
Yomawari: Night Alone
Nobunaga's Ambition: Sphere of Influence - Ascension
Dragon Ball: Xenoverse 2
Dishonored 2
Syberia 3
South Park: Fractured But Whole

And that's not even getting into a bunch of big name sequels.
We're ignoring the fact that you have several sequels in there, some of them rather big names, right? :p

Anyway, for me, as a guy who prefers to buy games in Steam sales, I'm probably only eyeing Pokemon SM this year, since you can't get that in a Steam sale. Though I am interested in getting Civ 6 and Dishonored 2 eventually.
 
Dragon Ball: Xenoverse 2

Dragon Ball: Xenoverse was a pretty average game... and one of my absolute favorites. It turns out I'm willing to overlook a lot if it means I get to be a saiyan.

And I almost achieved my ultimate form by fusing with Rod Thrashcock, but he refused to do the fusion dance with me

 
Top