MFTWrecks

You lost me at "ho-hum Tiny Tina spinoff." That game played better and was more exciting than anything since 2.

I firmly believe that, at this point, these games should play more like squad shooters. They're built around co-op anyhow. Make it so that even as a solo player I can recruit allies to join me in battle (at least one, for goodness sake) that then affords the gameplay experience as-intended for all players. Give the player basic squad controls (think Mass Effect or Ghost Recon and you'll get the idea) and when combined with a protagonist with personality, you could create loads of great banter and story opportunities along the way. Maybe the ally you bring on certain story missions changes how later missions play out or something. Stuff like that would boost replayability and make playthroughs truly unique and feel less grindy.

They have so many opportunities to evolve the core gameplay that they're just not taking that, after 15+ odd years of this, I really don't think they have the balls to do anything truly exciting with the franchise. It will forever be stuck in 7-8s until they rethink what the player experience truly is. Grapple hooks and more platforming ain't it.

I've always argued that rogue-lites (and rogue-likes) are very much modern extensions of the classic arcade formula where you replay "the same" experiences using your knowledge to further your progress. It's just that -lites have added a meta progression system to ease that burden and provide variety.

This is a perfect example of that. It looks like a great modern take on side scrolling beat 'em ups, a genre whose fans have been eating well lately. Between this and the Marvel space one, I myself am very pleased and will be set for a good while.

@silversteel91 Yeah? Lead to worse player numbers and longer wait times? Know what else leads to that? Players not being able to play against who they want.

If "play with anyone" players - the majority if that's the default setting - are used as filler for the players who make bespoke selections, I don't think it would actually do all that much. I'd think it would be better to have more players with some slightly lower wait times than to have people leave the game entirely.

I've never understood why, in games that enable cross-play (as all multiplayer titles should), there are not individual toggles per platform. Why the heck is it always basically all or nothing with a lot of this stuff? Give the players choices!

If you build the ability to play WITH a platform, simply give players the toggle to turn that specific platform on/off. It's an extremely straightforward usability matter.

You may want PC and all consoles. Good for you. You should be given that choice. If I want PS5 and Xbox, cool. If someone else wants Switch and Xbox or Switch and PC, fine. I don't need to understand why. But they should be given those choices. Simple as.

@LikelySatan Same. I read them as inspiration/insight, but not the end all be all word.

I'm far more into smaller releases that don't get reviews these days, anyhow. But sometimes, stuff like this B4 nonsense just breaks through and hammers home how bad it really is.

I've never played a Sonic Racing game. Is there rubber banding? If so, how pronounced is it? I have literally never gelled with a Mario Kart game because of how horrendous the rubber banding is. It ruins any racing game that has it for me.

@Nalim Honestly, I realize day one (or pre-release) reviews are "the norm" because they drive clicks, but the state of releases nowadays makes them remarkably disingenuous far too frequently to be acceptable.

We as the consumers of both the review as content and the games as products need to demand better. There is NO WAY a game in the state B4 is in should be sitting at an 84 on Metacritic. It just shouldn't. In no world is it in an acceptable state for a AAA release. And yet we sit around being essentially lied to by big review sites, which only really serves them because they get to spin the backlash and the TRUTH into more articles such as this exact one we're commenting on.

It doesn't matter to the review sites if they're accurate. They just need the content to exist to extract value. But all it is is a disservice to us, the main audience. Why we put up with it is beyond me.

I haven't bought more than 3 games at release in the last 5 years or so and it's ***** like this that is exactly why. There is, almost across the board, no game that releases today that is at its best on day one. Not a single title. Nearly every single title will not only get cheaper over time, but will be patched, optimized, and usually expanded upon to boot. We have gotten to a point where we are LITERALLY paying for products in beta (or earlier if you're into early access titles), such as this right here. And it happens at every scale of title, every publisher, nearly every developer. And we just keep putting up with it. It makes ZERO sense.

There is, and I mean this, no reason to buy a game on day one of release. Not a single reason. You pay more for the worst version of the title, basically without fail. Why people race to get screwed over is beyond me.

Seems a tad bit odd to say Cosmic Ghost Rider is simply another character when that character happens to be Frank Castle, aka The Punisher, who is a VERY well known character.

How is this news? We've known Hades 2 was coming to Switch platforms first for months now.

I bounced off Hollow Knight so hard. I thought I'd enjoy it since it was so well regarded and I enjoy Souls-likes. But I REALLY don't like Metroidvanias and it just didn't click with me.

Happy people finally get to enjoy the sequel, though. Hope it lives up to the hype.

I am hyped for this, but the PCGamer review has me worried. It touches on legitimate gameplay system issues I think could prove EXTREMELY aggravating if you run into a bad spot. (The inventory system coupled with the save system, which is apparently overly generous, can trap you in situations mid-conflict where you don't have ammo/items to get out of being re-killed over and over.)

I'll wait for a few patches.

The original Perfect Dark is my most played N64 game of all time and still a top 3 most played multiplayer game for me. I played that game's bot mode for AGES.

The fact Microsoft was reviving the IP was the biggest, most exciting thing they had ever done imo. No other IP they own - even after buying Activision Blizzard - was as exciting to me. The fact they were reviving it in the wake of Cyberpunk and (at least seemingly) evoking some Cyberpunk/Deus Ex sort of reactivity in the game world... chef's kiss.

Now that they killed it, I literally have no interest in a single IP their collective company owns besides Diablo. And Diablo 4 has strained my relationship with that IP. So I'm barely even interested in that anymore.

They are, hands down, the worst company to own an IP you love. Because they will either ruin it, shelve it, or simply never do anything with it at all. I really, honestly, don't know which is worse. Because they all suck for fans.

@4fold Counterpoint: They're fun as hell and, for a lot of ARPG fans, they're like crack. It's the entire Diablo power curve from nothing-to-god in minutes instead of dozens of hours.

They are pure, distilled arcade-like fun. That's what matters.

This game is dope as hell. It was feature-rich months back. I can't wait to go back to it.

Borderlands 4, Hell Is Us, Cronos, Daemon X Machina, Ghost of Yotei, Vampire the Masquerade, and Battlefield 6 all releasing within like 6-7 weeks of each other is absolute absurdity. 3 of those launch on back to back days, no less! Literally my most antipated games of the year all crammed into a time frame that will make it impossible for me to appreciate them all on release.

This pastime can sometimes feel exhausting.

@lazarus11 Dude. You just claimed this game - clearly inspired by a completely different type of action game - is a Souls-like. I'm not the one who needs the assist. Take your own advice.

@lazarus11 That's a lot of words to tell us you don't know what a Souls-like is.

Could those 2 classes simply unlock after you beat the story once? Games used to have loads of unlocks for those dedicated enough to finish.

In an rpg like this, it would help keep players engaged by enticing them with another playthrough once the credits roll.

Those that want all the options early can pay up, if they want.

Maybe something like that would be feasible.

I want shooters to go back to the R6 Vegas style of visual customization: let me pick and choose boots, legs, torso, upper arm, lower, helmet, etc. Make my kit MY kit. I want to show off MY favorite look and feel.

Sell skins, sure. But let users buy them and, essentially, break them apart to customize themselves top to bottom. Waaaaaaay more self expression is available that way.

The novelty of this series wore thin by the end of the 360 era. I have no interest in ever playing another.

I tried one last gen when I had an Xbox One S and I couldn't even be bothered with it for more than a few hours. It's a series that just never evolved. (Didn't help that it was a first party title that was glitchy as hell.)

"Combine in" has a very particular meaning. I thought this was going to discuss some sort of Capcom Smash Bros-like.

I think "inspire" would be a lot more clear.

@LogicStrikesAgain Anyone in the corporate world knows full well there surely isn't an actual written requirement on paper. But there's obviously a wink wink nudge nudge "understanding" that if you're not considering cross-media potential, you're likely doomed these days.

I guarantee there's no mandate. But there's almost certainly a non-spoken one.

@LogicStrikesAgain "Consider" and "focus on" are two different things, though. And they seem to want to REQUIRE most properties be cross-media capable. That just puts a ton of undue pressure on their developers.

Put out a great game. Build a fanbase. Develop things after that if the fans demand it.

But don't come out the gates as though every damn IP needs to storm the world.

And let's be clear, it's not like Sony is even GOOD at this. They let Kpop Demon Hunters out the door and it cost them LOADS of the very money they're chasing. If this is their strategy, they aren't doing a good job of it.

Even their "successes" like TLOU an GoW are themselves the byproduct of the more organic style of growth they seem to now be avoiding. It's just odd and poorly thought out, imo.

@TrollOfWar The issue, though, is that NONE of those franchises started off as cross-media properties. They were good, creative experiences that organically grew into massive juggernauts. (Pokemon quicker than the others.)

What I don't get is how all these bigwigs think starting off with "unbeatable cross-media uber-franchise" as a goal is REMOTELY attainable. That is nearly ALWAYS a byproduct of creativity, freedom to explore, innovation, passion, and attention to detail.

If these decision makers want "the next big thing" they have to understand they can't cook that up in a lab or in a focus test. They need to empower passionate creators to create. It's a marathon, not a sprint.

I don't think it's wild to say that had Sony thrown its GaaS and Bungie money at a wide range of fresh developers and let them cook, they probably WOULD have 1-2 of these franchises on the path to the success they seem to want. Instead, they put the cart before the horse and just expect money thrown at random IP to become instantly successful beyond their wildest dreams. And then they're shocked when it repeatedly fails to amount to anything.

@RoomWithaMoose Of course. SOME people do. As you say, if they sell, they'll provide them.

But my question is is that amount of money worth it long term? What percentage of people who like them ACTUALLY buy them? The games sell millions and millions of copies. How many Beavis skins actually get sold? Does that make up for the negative discourse and erosion of the brand's identity over time?

How much of the BF6 beta's success (which was by all measures RESOUNDINGLY successful beyond expectations) is because of people being driven away from COD specifically from that sort of stuff? I know I personally will buy BF6 (my first BF purchased since BFBC2) because I cannot stand the tonal dissonance on display in COD these days. I heard MW was a return to form, so I got MW2 and then it quickly went bonkers and lost me forever. I'm done.

That erosion means something. People look at these big behemoth games like they're too big to fail (which Activision itself sees the IP as), but nothing lasts forever. Brands can and do die off. Erosion is a slow process but given time, will absolutely destroy.

What will be the tipping point for COD? Was getting a few bucks from the Mike Judge die hards worth long term brand identity and vision?

To me, long term, I'd say it won't prove beneficial. The games simply have no true identity anymore. They stand out by blending in. They have become visual stew. Just noise wrapped around a jumbled mess of game systems they cycle in and out every few years to act like they create new things without ever truly doing much of anything.

It's a mess of a series.

A lot of people are quick to point out how visually or tonally abrasive up and coming games can be. They talk down on other shooters but give COD a pass just because it's COD. That will only last so long. COD may be the big IP on the block, but it is also one that even its fans talk crap about constantly. Eventually those fans will move on. Tastes change. You can't eat slop stew forever.

This looks great to me.

This game's animations are the sort of thing I expected to be commonplace by now in the industry. It's a shame they're such an outlier. But DAMN if they aren't incredible.

...What's the difference?

@Lowdefal But my point is, I think a lot of GaaS failures can be aimed at titles that didn't do anything to stand out from the crowd of other big-name GaaS titles.

Instead of chasing trends, companies should invest in unique titles so that players will be more enticed to try them and, if they like it, keep it in their rotation because they don't get that experience anywhere else already.

I'm not surprised a ton of battle royale games come and go. They all chase the Fortnite trend or the Warzone trend. They bring far too little to the conversation.

I think Sony has some IP that could translate well to reaching parts of the market that are simply under-served if designed well. But it seems they want to chase existing trends like everyone else and then be surprised they don't break through. It shouldn't surprise anyone when GaaS also-ran #4744574219 doesn't become a hit anymore. But it still baffles the big decision makers, for some reason.

I thought Sony would want a piece of the extraction shooter pie. Helldivers 2 is close. And Marathon is obviously theirs, but we didn't know that was an extraction shooter until its reveal.

I expected them to be putting together something unique for the console space and tap into a different part of the live service market back when all these GaaS titles were revealed. Why they can't figure out how to put something viable together at all is beyond my understanding.

They already had an awesome extraction mode. It was called DMZ. And they killed it before they ever dedicated resources to making truly worth investing in. Never in a million years would I trust them to create something compelling and then actually support it, anyhow.

I hate Activision's handling of this series with a deep burning passion.

@Propaperpusher If it can truly do both perspectives justice, I mean... that alone would be awesome.

@Oz_Who_Dat_Dare I mean, it looks like Cyberpunk with some Max Payne gameplay. Those are two disparate series and one of them has a lone entry. The other hasn't seen a title in ages.

Plus, if it really does manage to be playable in both perspectives, that's not something too too many games attempt these days.

Nothing may be truly capital-O original these days. But as I said, I'd rather try something like this in the shooter space than COD rehash #15654112255.

Nowadays, I'd rather try something like this that at least TRIES something non-standard than every also-ran shooter out there.

@Jrs1 Misread one of the earlier comments, thanks.

That being said, when an older Switch game can do 4 player split-screen, I think a PS5 game should be able to do better than 2.

Cruis'n Blast is one of my most played games for Switch. My kids absolutely ADORE it. It's so bonkers over the top silly. There's dumb fun to be had with this kind of game, imo.

That being said, I am REALLY surprised this doesn't have multiplayer or splitscreen, though, considering CB (again for the OG Switch!) has both. The vast majority of the fun I have had with my kids playing CB has been laughing next to each other while racing monster trucks and double decker busses against UFOs and sharks through tracks being torn up by tornadoes or wrecked by massive yetis. Without that old school side by side joy, I just don't see the point.

It reminds me of Bad Company 2, the Battlefield I spent the most time in. The destruction is as awesome as it ever was. And now, this may sound blasphemous to BF diehards, but it truly feels like a snappier, heftier COD but with all the bells and whistles and mayhem that BF excels at. It may not be exactly what BF diehards wanted (if their subreddit is any indication), but DAMN if it's not exactly the right balance for me.

I am having a ton of fun with it, a few UI and control quibbles aside.

Been having a blast with Flintlock Siege of Dawn and the BF6 beta!

@Blauwe_Chimay That's like asking why do you wear clothes?

@get2sammyb I mean, there are a large number of hardcore gamers that say Fortnite is an FPS. I think we can let it slide.

(And no, not when discussing Ballistic mode.)

Also, do we REALLY think she was going to go into the nuances of what a roguelike is to someone who themselves may know very little about games? Or whose audience likely knows less? She may easily have been trying to make it relatable without going into the details too far.

Hell, gamers can't even settle on the difference between roguelike and rogue lite. That debate has been had for years now. Calling it rogue style is actually a better, broader term, if you ask me, whether she meant to say it or not.

@QwarktasticLombax Those codes are only for early access. The beta opens on the 9th to everyone, no Twitch viewing required.

@BAMozzy Is that concurrent subscribers or lifetime? Is that consistent or a peak? Huge difference. If Microsoft aren't touting it, then I question how amazing the numbers truly are. I have a hard time thinking GP alone nets them $4.2b annually. But maybe I'm out of the loop on Xbox's financials.

$350mm/month sounds great. But they are also paying millions to every dev who has a game on the service. Even if it's a fat, one time check, those checks are plentiful and they are eating into that pot of gold, no doubt.

Plus, if they had so much cash around from GP subs that they could afford to keep studios afloat, as you claim they have, then they sure as ***** wouldn't be shuttering so many studios and laying off so many employees.

And let's face it: the reality is, if GP's model was such a straightforward money maker, everyone in the business would be offering a 1:1 copy of the service. Which they are not. Truth is, gussied up numbers or not, they have undoubtedly left money on the table by putting big $70 straight into the service.

(I'm letting it slide that you assume 35mm subscribers are all paying the full $10/month rate when offers like a 12 month sub cost $75 and the service offers countless promotions to bring that rate far below $10/month, as I think it probably safely accounts for those subscribers who pay for the higher tiers of service.)

If anything, this HAS to piss Microsoft off in a way. Sure, they're making money on these titles being on PS5, but think of how many millions more they could have sold if they hadn't put them all on to Gamepass.

There's absolutely no way the GP math for these big budget releases truly works in their favor. If it did, they wouldn't be doing this at all.

If Microsoft brass isn't staring daggers at the Xbox decision makers, they should be. There is no world in which GP truly makes sense for Microsoft from a business perspective. This all proves that.

The HQ was always moronic anyhow. The fact they continually make engaging with their products such an absolute ***** show is laughable. They definitely do not get NEARLY as much ***** as they should for how poorly they manage the franchise with this HQ thing these days.

@Americansamurai1 The fact that their Harry Potter game, where you go to school and interact with countless others for at LEAST 4 years even in-lore, was their single player game and that they made Suicide Squad, where a small group of mercenaries is sent into places to die, was a live service game will NEVER cease to amaze me.

BR is fine, but I would have rather seen them explore an extraction mode. That seems to be the more "in" sort of mode.

Something about shooting dinosaurs with lasers rubs me the wrong way. I want to be hitting dinosaurs with high caliber bullets and seeing them get ripped up.

A dinosaur shooter that implemented enemy destruction systems the way some modern zombie and horror games do is what I want to see. A dinosaur being blasted with blue laser balls and falling over just isn't as visceral as I'd want to see. The shooting just looks so hollow.

Sure, blame the IP for your game launching in an abysmal state with broken and undercooked gameplay systems. Totally fair to throw your partner under the bus instead of owning up to the fact your company at large has suffered from YEARS of mismanagement and abysmal design decisions ALL UNDER YOUR LEADERSHIP.

Ubisoft straight up sucks these days. Full stop.

Shredder's Revenge was such a solid beat-em-up that anything this studio puts out in the genre going forward will be a day 1 buy from me. I used to LOVE this style of game back in the arcades and Shredder's Revenge proved you could pay homage to the classics while providing a fun, fresh spin on things.

And as it so happens, the TMNT and Marvel games were my favorites of the bunch, so this is literally right up my alley. I am so pumped for this.

I love this. More games, especially narrative-heavy ones, should reinforce that your actions have consequences.

I get it's a videogame, but it creates a really huge void of narrative dissonance to be told you're on a deadline or that some threat is imminent but then the game world doesn't care if you screw around for a few dozen hours.

It makes sense in some games, but many more should embrace true consequence.