Video Game Thread v. Wii4One

[Polarbear]

I really liked what I played so far of RDR2. I'm now taking a bit of a break from it.

One of my biggest annoyances with the game, is that Arthur feels really clumsy to control. I could be sprinting through a town, and accidentally knock someone over because the controls are imprecise.

I decided to jump into Assassin's Creed: Odyssey and I have been really liking it so far. Full disclosure: I have never played an AC game before. I also really like Kassandra, the protagonist and she feels like a ninja to control compared to Arthur from RDR2.

[jcmoorehead]

I like it a lot but the only thing I think they dropped the ball on is the walking speed. Why can't we have the camp walking speed all the damn time. The walking speed outside of camp is too slow and the slowest running speed is too fast and looks stupid if you only want to travel a short distance on foot. All this is especially jarring after playing Horizon Zero Dawn for the past few weeks which absolutely nailed the speed and animation transitions from slow as fuck walks to a fast jog. I hope there is a mod for this is the PC version ever comes out.

But yes that's just a minor complaint. RDR2 seems really great so far. I gotta finish up Spider-Mang so I can devote all my video game time to RDR2.

I know exactly what you mean and it is annoying.  Hopefully they will send out an update to fix that soon.  The game is still relatively new.

Are they even still bothering with singleplayer? If they are I doubt they would bother to change walking speed. Most gamers don't seem to be bothered by it.

I had unbelievably high hopes for this game. Single player was great, but I can't believe that the "beta" is still as terrible as it is. There's like 3 or 4 basic things that the majority of players are asking for, and with every "update", all we get is a "Here's a new PVP mode nobody asked for!". I don't get it. I wouldn't bank on single player changes any time soon. It's clear their heart is set on micro transactions and nothing else.

Didn't they also mess up multiplayer for GTA V? I don't play online but some how I was under the impression that GTA V online started out good then really went to shit due to changes made by Rockstar.

Sort of the opposite really. GTAV started off pretty poor and with little to do, and with each update more and more was added. It wasn't really until the Heists update shortly after the PS4/XB1 versions were released that it started to hit its stride.

As far as RDR2 goes, I would imagine they are making plenty of changes to the online that the players have given feedback on, it's just implementing that feedback isn't quite as simple a process as people imagine it to be.

[ReaperKK]

So yesterday I'm finally winding down the Witcher 3. I'm at near the final meet up and I go to a loading screen, the game never loads. It's a known endless loading bug that can come up, well mine did right at the end. 70 hours of game play and I can't finish the game. I tried everything, deleted old saves, reinstalled the game, went back as far back as I could stand and nothing. I'll have to youtube the end.

I'm pissed but what can you do. I almost never experience bugs in any games (bethesda included), guess my luck ran out this time

[Chino]

I like it a lot but the only thing I think they dropped the ball on is the walking speed. Why can't we have the camp walking speed all the damn time. The walking speed outside of camp is too slow and the slowest running speed is too fast and looks stupid if you only want to travel a short distance on foot. All this is especially jarring after playing Horizon Zero Dawn for the past few weeks which absolutely nailed the speed and animation transitions from slow as fuck walks to a fast jog. I hope there is a mod for this is the PC version ever comes out.

But yes that's just a minor complaint. RDR2 seems really great so far. I gotta finish up Spider-Mang so I can devote all my video game time to RDR2.

I know exactly what you mean and it is annoying.  Hopefully they will send out an update to fix that soon.  The game is still relatively new.

Are they even still bothering with singleplayer? If they are I doubt they would bother to change walking speed. Most gamers don't seem to be bothered by it.

I had unbelievably high hopes for this game. Single player was great, but I can't believe that the "beta" is still as terrible as it is. There's like 3 or 4 basic things that the majority of players are asking for, and with every "update", all we get is a "Here's a new PVP mode nobody asked for!". I don't get it. I wouldn't bank on single player changes any time soon. It's clear their heart is set on micro transactions and nothing else.

Didn't they also mess up multiplayer for GTA V? I don't play online but some how I was under the impression that GTA V online started out good then really went to shit due to changes made by Rockstar.

Sort of the opposite really. GTAV started off pretty poor and with little to do, and with each update more and more was added. It wasn't really until the Heists update shortly after the PS4/XB1 versions were released that it started to hit its stride.

As far as RDR2 goes, I would imagine they are making plenty of changes to the online that the players have given feedback on, it's just implementing that feedback isn't quite as simple a process as people imagine it to be.

I still argue that GTO-Online was one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of gaming.

I think the frustration with RDR-O comes from a number of factors.

1) Even when GTA-O was initially released as a pile of shit, it still included basic stuff that should have been in RDR-O from day one.

• Personal, permanent safe places with garages
• A good number of contact missions

2) Private Lobbies - This one should not be hard and should have been available right out of the gate. I get it's the wild west, but sometimes my buddies and I want to be able to explore without having to deal with douche bags whose sole prerogative is to murder anything that moves. This is also something that GTA-O had on launch day.
3) In 5 months they haven't really released anything. All we get is new PVP modes which nobody is asking for, and they nerfed plenty of things that helped players earn money (hunting, fishing, etc..)
4) If there is stuff in the works like you suggest, they could throw us a fucking bone. With GTA-O, we constantly get updates on what's to come. People are quitting/have quit this game in droves, I don't understand why Rockstar hasn't released a statement yet saying "We hear you. Here are the big changes we intend to and are actively working on. Thank you for your patience and participation in this beta". It's been 5 months and the beta is virtually exactly the same as it was when it launched.
5) So far every update has in some way , shape, or form been geared toward micro transactions. There's a bug that's been plaguing people for almost two weeks now where they've stopped getting their cash and XP awards after completing stuff. Still not fixed. Last weekend the gold store went down and they had it patched in less than 6 hours.

[cramx3]

It wasn't really until the Heists update shortly after the PS4/XB1 versions were released that it started to hit its stride.

I still argue that GTO-Online was one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of gaming. 

Maybe, but only after they added the heists.  I thought it was shit on PS3, then when I got it later on PC, thought it was fun but nothing crazy.... then they added the heists and it blew my mind how awesome those were to play with friends or even randoms. Earn money, buy stuff, do them again because they were so fun.  I mostly stopped playing because they didn't add more (maybe they did, I know they added more missions but none seemed to be as fun as those first four heists).  But figured they could move that model to RDR2 and it would make that online world so awesome.  Maybe next year 

[Phoenix87x]

Saw that Mass effect 3 was on sale so I picked it up. Never finished it, so I figured why not.

Man, do I miss this series. Getting back into ME3 felt so much like putting on an old pair of shoes that felt just right and fit perfectly.

[Herrick]

Didn't they also mess up multiplayer for GTA V? I don't play online but some how I was under the impression that GTA V online started out good then really went to shit due to changes made by Rockstar.

Sort of the opposite really. GTAV started off pretty poor and with little to do, and with each update more and more was added. It wasn't really until the Heists update shortly after the PS4/XB1 versions were released that it started to hit its stride.

As far as RDR2 goes, I would imagine they are making plenty of changes to the online that the players have given feedback on, it's just implementing that feedback isn't quite as simple a process as people imagine it to be.

I see. I don't know where I got that idea from.

I really liked what I played so far of RDR2. I'm now taking a bit of a break from it.

One of my biggest annoyances with the game, is that Arthur feels really clumsy to control. I could be sprinting through a town, and accidentally knock someone over because the controls are imprecise.

I decided to jump into Assassin's Creed: Odyssey and I have been really liking it so far. Full disclosure: I have never played an AC game before. I also really like Kassandra, the protagonist and she feels like a ninja to control compared to Arthur from RDR2.

I've played all of the main PC/Console games. Say what you will about the series but they really got movement down right. Some AC games do it better than others but overall, it's always nice to travel around in those games. Whenever I play a game where a little bump in the ground blocks the character's movement I think of how I could just vault over it if it were an AC game.

I think AC3 is my favorite as far as movement goes. You could walk/run at all sorts of different speeds. There was a perfect little jogging animation that looked great. Yeah I'm a bit obsessed with moving around in video games.

I stopped playing Odyssey but I'll definitely get back into it. I'm going to play as Kassandra. I didn't like the guy. He was kinda dorky. 

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

So there's some rumors about GTA 6 and Battlefield Bad Company 3 being launch titles for Playstation 5 because according to a post about a year ago PS5 will launch in 2020 which is in line what Sony released about PS5 recently.

https://youtu.be/ZvK0_eBsato

[Phoenix87x]

Not a battlefield guy, but I'm certainly a GTA guy. If VI came out in 2020 that would be awesome and if its a launch title, then I would pick up a PS5 at launch.

there's other rumors about PS5 have some decent backwards compatibility. If so, that would make me quite happy.

[Herrick]

I'm a GTA fan but as someone who waited a little over 3 years to play it, I don't see much in this point in a 1-month exclusive. Yes, I know not all gamers are Herrick but are there really that many people who will buy a PS5 just to play GTA 6 a month earlier than the Xbox crowd? I'm sure the PC version will come out well over a year later so we'll have to wait even longer. Fine with me really.

[Polarbear]

I jumped into this console generation way late, as I was just getting back into gaming in general.

Assuming both PS5 and the next XBOX both launch next year, I'm going to take a good look at each and then decide which I'm going to buy. I'm not a diehard brand loyal gamer! But anyway, I shall jump into the next generation right away.

[Chino]

Seeing as GTA-V was a revisit of a newly built San Andreas, nothing would thrill me more greatly than to see the next installment of the series being GTA-VIce City

[cramx3]

Will RDR2 ever make it to PC or are they just going to focus on GTA6 for PS5?  I didn't buy a PS4 for RDR2 so I won't be buying a PS5 for GTA6 but it sure is making me lose my interest in rockstar.

[Chino]

Will RDR2 ever make it to PC or are they just going to focus on GTA6 for PS5?  I didn't buy a PS4 for RDR2 so I won't be buying a PS5 for GTA6 but it sure is making me lose my interest in rockstar.

My money is on Red Dead Redemption getting a re-master on the PS5, just like GTA-5 did on the PS4. The remaster will be RDR2, plus the map and story from RDR1 as a bonus. It will release on PC then as well.

[ReaperKK]

Will RDR2 ever make it to PC or are they just going to focus on GTA6 for PS5?  I didn't buy a PS4 for RDR2 so I won't be buying a PS5 for GTA6 but it sure is making me lose my interest in rockstar.

My money is on Red Dead Redemption getting a re-master on the PS5, just like GTA-5 did on the PS4. The remaster will be RDR2, plus the map and story from RDR1 as a bonus. It will release on PC then as well.

I think you’re right with the exception of the RDR1 part. Maybe the map might be done but the reason the game wasn’t ported over to pc in the first place was because a large part of the code would have to have be reworked to make it happen. It wasn’t an undertaking rockstar wanted to do.

[Herrick]

Will RDR2 ever make it to PC or are they just going to focus on GTA6 for PS5?  I didn't buy a PS4 for RDR2 so I won't be buying a PS5 for GTA6 but it sure is making me lose my interest in rockstar.

My money is on Red Dead Redemption getting a re-master on the PS5, just like GTA-5 did on the PS4. The remaster will be RDR2, plus the map and story from RDR1 as a bonus. It will release on PC then as well.

I think it will eventually be released on the PC. If not, I think they would just plainly state RDR2 is never coming to PC. 

[The Walrus]

Anyone pick up Mortal Kombat 11 yet? I'm terrible at these games and have never actually bought one (or played one since the N64 games) but I really want this title. Hoping to pick up super cheap in the future since I already know I'm bad at it, but I've heard awesome stuff about its story mode.

[El Barto]

Seeing as GTA-V was a revisit of a newly built San Andreas, nothing would thrill me more greatly than to see the next installment of the series being GTA-VIce City

This would be the most appealing option to me, but I'm not sure it'd be enough. Honestly, I picked up the last two because it was kind of expected. I've been a longtime fan of the series. It really hasn't done anything for me since San Andreas, though. It just moved in a direction that doesn't appeal to me. The more realistic they make things the less fun it becomes, at least for my taste.

[Chino]

Seeing as GTA-V was a revisit of a newly built San Andreas, nothing would thrill me more greatly than to see the next installment of the series being GTA-VIce City

This would be the most appealing option to me, but I'm not sure it'd be enough. Honestly, I picked up the last two because it was kind of expected. I've been a longtime fan of the series. It really hasn't done anything for me since San Andreas, though. It just moved in a direction that doesn't appeal to me. The more realistic they make things the less fun it becomes, at least for my taste.

Ever play the Saint's Row games? They're basically GTA with zero realism of any kind. You can drop kick people in moving cars through their windshield and murder people with a 3 foot dildo.

[El Barto]

Seeing as GTA-V was a revisit of a newly built San Andreas, nothing would thrill me more greatly than to see the next installment of the series being GTA-VIce City

This would be the most appealing option to me, but I'm not sure it'd be enough. Honestly, I picked up the last two because it was kind of expected. I've been a longtime fan of the series. It really hasn't done anything for me since San Andreas, though. It just moved in a direction that doesn't appeal to me. The more realistic they make things the less fun it becomes, at least for my taste.

Ever play the Saint's Row games? They're basically GTA with zero realism of any kind. You can drop kick people in moving cars through their windshield and murder people with a 3 foot dildo.

III - SA all had a wonderful balance, I thought. It wasn't complete pandemonium, nor did it take itself too seriously. I think that's the problem I have with the last couple of iterations.

[Dublagent66]

Here is yet another dilemma that I constantly face in my life of gaming.  Right in the middle of RDRII and Days Gone is coming up this Friday. 

[ReaperKK]

Which chapter are you on in rdr?

[Herrick]

Here is yet another dilemma that I constantly face in my life of gaming.  Right in the middle of RDRII and Days Gone is coming up this Friday. 

Days Gone has been getting mediocre reviews from the big sites. I'm going to check out the YouTubers' reviews. Even if the game got 10s, I'd still wait for a sale/price drop. I have way too many games to play.

I restarted Red Dead Redemption 2 after not playing it for a month so I could finish Horizon Zero Dawn and Spider-Mang. RDR2 will take many, many hours and I am happy about that

[Cool Chris]

Saw that Mass effect 3 was on sale so I picked it up. Never finished it, so I figured why not.

Man, do I miss this series. Getting back into ME3 felt so much like putting on an old pair of shoes that felt just right and fit perfectly.

Funny, I literally just bought ME3 myself about 30 minutes ago, having only played 1 and 2. It's not my favorite franchise but they are damn enjoyable games.

[Ruba]

This is something I feel is worth sharing. I don't know how many of you are familiar with Ross Scott (of Freeman's Mind fame), but he's doing other videos also and one issue he has commonly expressed disdain towards is companies "killing" video games, i.e. shutting down central servers on online-only games, which leaves the players permanently unavailable to play games they have paid for. I don't personally play online-only games, but I think this practice feels highly unethical if not borderline illegal. And lo and behold, Ross recently released his "declaration of war" towards so called games-as-a-service. I'm currently half hours in and I'm thinking it has been well thought-out and researched and worth of at least taking a peek at (it's over an hour long though).

I'll leave this with a quote I find amusing and really fitting: "If I sold you a copy of a game on disk, then next month snuck into your house and I broke the disk I would go to jail. In practical terms, that's almost exactly what games as a service is."

"Games as a service" is a fraud.

[The Walrus]

This is something I feel is worth sharing. I don't know how many of you are familiar with Ross Scott (of Freeman's Mind fame), but he's doing other videos also and one issue he has commonly expressed disdain towards is companies "killing" video games, i.e. shutting down central servers on online-only games, which leaves the players permanently unavailable to play games they have paid for. I don't personally play online-only games, but I think this practice feels highly unethical if not borderline illegal. And lo and behold, Ross recently released his "declaration of war" towards so called games-as-a-service. I'm currently half hours in and I'm thinking it has been well thought-out and researched and worth of at least taking a peek at (it's over an hour long though).

I'll leave this with a quote I find amusing and really fitting: "If I sold you a copy of a game on disk, then next month snuck into your house and I broke the disk I would go to jail. In practical terms, that's almost exactly what games as a service is."

"Games as a service" is a fraud.

While I absolutely abhor the AAA games industry and 'games as a service / live services' in particular even moreso, I don't think those are at all the same thing. One of those is committing at least two crimes - breaking and entering, and destruction of property - and the other is a company putting an end to something you know from the very beginning will not last forever. I'm very interested in this video and will watch it tonight after work (and Avengers: Endgame), but I had to push back on the assertion that ending a live service game is the same as destroying something somebody owns. With a live service you aren't even paying to own the game anyway, you're either paying for access to the service, or not paying at all if it's free like Fortnite, unless you use the optional microtransactions. Nothing about 'live services' is illegal at all.

[Dublagent66]

Which chapter are you on in rdr?

Chapter 4 and loving it! 

Here is yet another dilemma that I constantly face in my life of gaming.  Right in the middle of RDRII and Days Gone is coming up this Friday. 

Days Gone has been getting mediocre reviews from the big sites. I'm going to check out the YouTubers' reviews. Even if the game got 10s, I'd still wait for a sale/price drop. I have way too many games to play.

I restarted Red Dead Redemption 2 after not playing it for a month so I could finish Horizon Zero Dawn and Spider-Mang. RDR2 will take many, many hours and I am happy about that

Probably what I should've done but already pre-ordered it.  I know, I got it bad.  Oh well, still excited to check it out. 

[ReaperKK]

So I’m maybe an hour or less from finishing mass effect 1 and the 3/4 of the game didn’t really interest me but man the final act of the game is awesome. I’m now really looking forward to playing mass effect 2.

[ariich]

While I absolutely abhor the AAA games industry and 'games as a service / live services' in particular even moreso, I don't think those are at all the same thing. One of those is committing at least two crimes - breaking and entering, and destruction of property - and the other is a company putting an end to something you know from the very beginning will not last forever. I'm very interested in this video and will watch it tonight after work (and Avengers: Endgame), but I had to push back on the assertion that ending a live service game is the same as destroying something somebody owns. With a live service you aren't even paying to own the game anyway, you're either paying for access to the service, or not paying at all if it's free like Fortnite, unless you use the optional microtransactions. Nothing about 'live services' is illegal at all.

While you're absolutely right in principle, consumer understanding of the difference between a product and a service is still not that mature. Same with things like Kindle books - a hell of a lot of people don't realise that they "own" the e-book only for as long as the platform is supported (unless that's changed). If people are happy to pay for a game in the full knowledge that it's a service that will be time-limited, then fair play.

[The Walrus]

While I absolutely abhor the AAA games industry and 'games as a service / live services' in particular even moreso, I don't think those are at all the same thing. One of those is committing at least two crimes - breaking and entering, and destruction of property - and the other is a company putting an end to something you know from the very beginning will not last forever. I'm very interested in this video and will watch it tonight after work (and Avengers: Endgame), but I had to push back on the assertion that ending a live service game is the same as destroying something somebody owns. With a live service you aren't even paying to own the game anyway, you're either paying for access to the service, or not paying at all if it's free like Fortnite, unless you use the optional microtransactions. Nothing about 'live services' is illegal at all.

While you're absolutely right in principle, consumer understanding of the difference between a product and a service is still not that mature. Same with things like Kindle books - a hell of a lot of people don't realise that they "own" the e-book only for as long as the platform is supported (unless that's changed). If people are happy to pay for a game in the full knowledge that it's a service that will be time-limited, then fair play.

Yeah... you're right. I tend to forget lots of people, even big gamers, aren't really aware of that side of the game world.

[Herrick]

While I absolutely abhor the AAA games industry and 'games as a service / live services' in particular even moreso, I don't think those are at all the same thing. One of those is committing at least two crimes - breaking and entering, and destruction of property - and the other is a company putting an end to something you know from the very beginning will not last forever. I'm very interested in this video and will watch it tonight after work (and Avengers: Endgame), but I had to push back on the assertion that ending a live service game is the same as destroying something somebody owns. With a live service you aren't even paying to own the game anyway, you're either paying for access to the service, or not paying at all if it's free like Fortnite, unless you use the optional microtransactions. Nothing about 'live services' is illegal at all.

While you're absolutely right in principle, consumer understanding of the difference between a product and a service is still not that mature. Same with things like Kindle books - a hell of a lot of people don't realise that they "own" the e-book only for as long as the platform is supported (unless that's changed). If people are happy to pay for a game in the full knowledge that it's a service that will be time-limited, then fair play.

I think Kindle e-books are a safer bet because it's very easy to find these e-books from...other sources. So if for some reason the Kindle service is discontinued, pretty much whatever you've purchased and lost can be found again.

[Ruba]

While I absolutely abhor the AAA games industry and 'games as a service / live services' in particular even moreso, I don't think those are at all the same thing. One of those is committing at least two crimes - breaking and entering, and destruction of property - and the other is a company putting an end to something you know from the very beginning will not last forever. I'm very interested in this video and will watch it tonight after work (and Avengers: Endgame), but I had to push back on the assertion that ending a live service game is the same as destroying something somebody owns. With a live service you aren't even paying to own the game anyway, you're either paying for access to the service, or not paying at all if it's free like Fortnite, unless you use the optional microtransactions. Nothing about 'live services' is illegal at all.

I admit I picked an analogy that is polarizing and black-and-white. An analogy I've thought up myself is that you buy a book and five years later someone at the publishing house pushes a button that makes it spontaneously combust. Would you feel robbed then? And I know this example sounds silly too, but this is something game companies are doing and are allowed to do at the moment. Also, in this analogy that button destroys every copy of the book in existence so no one can read it again.

While you're absolutely right in principle, consumer understanding of the difference between a product and a service is still not that mature. Same with things like Kindle books - a hell of a lot of people don't realise that they "own" the e-book only for as long as the platform is supported (unless that's changed). If people are happy to pay for a game in the full knowledge that it's a service that will be time-limited, then fair play.

This is something Ross talks about at length in the video. Most of the so-called "Games as a service" are NOT services, but goods you receive a perpetual license for once you've bought them.

[Crow]

Industries have decided recently that they hate the concept of consumers actually owning anything

This is why I try to buy games & cds in physical formats wherever possible

[ErHaO]

I absolutely adore Days Gone, enjoying it far more than Sekiro and I even prefer it to the Resident Evil 2 remake. I can make a list of issues with this game, but I can also make a list of things that make that first list irrelevant to me. The first section definitely feels like a 7/10 game, but what follows is so much better in every regard. There are many things this game does better than the similar Red Dead Redemption 2 or Far Cry 5 in my opinion. I think if you enjoy the footage of this game, you should enjoy the game.

And in regards to Sekiro, I got competent enough to defeat Guardian Ape in under 10 tries but wasn't feeling it anymore. Nearly every encounter is deflect, attack, deflect, attack x100, with one of the following three moves inbetween: mikiri counter for thrust attack, jump on top for sweep attack, jump backwards for grab attack. Stuck? Just repeat until you get the rythm of the attacks and you are set to go. And like 2 minutes from the boss you just defeated there is another (mini) boss you attack with the same tactics. And that is basically it for all the encounters I experienced save for two bosses. And I watched a housemate play the final boss and it was basically the same again, just endlessly long. Setting is beatiful and the combat looks insanely cool and feels really good though. I just wished they allowed for a bit more freedom in how you use the moveset. And maybe more than one weapon or more rewarding use of all the proshetics. I basically only used firecrackers for some free hits here and there.

[Dublagent66]

I absolutely adore Days Gone, enjoying it far more than Sekiro and I even prefer it to the Resident Evil 2 remake. I can make a list of issues with this game, but I can also make a list of things that make that first list irrelevant to me. The first section definitely feels like a 7/10 game, but what follows is so much better in every regard. There are many things this game does better than the similar Red Dead Redemption 2 or Far Cry 5 in my opinion. I think if you enjoy the footage of this game, you should enjoy the game.

That's great.  Thanks for the info.  I like what I've seen so far, but not too deep into it yet.  Still getting used to the gameplay and controls, but looking forward to playing a lot more of Days Gone.