I don’t care about the price. I care about quality. Developers seem to think massive maps and endless map markers equals quality so long as it looks pretty. It does not. Reduce map size and the number of markers. I don’t care about hoofing it across some huge pretty, meaningless void to get more dumb armor for the fiftieth time. And I don’t need to be told where it is. Let me find it. Give me some clues (but please don’t always copy Elden Ring level of crypticness). Let me use my brain.
Focus on quality mechanics that are fun, on quests that have depth that are truly rewarding, make secret items feel rare and special instead of redundant and superfluous.
$70 is not a lot for a game. I don’t care what others here say. This is a fair price for the amount of entertainment we get from massive productions. And when you factor in inflation games should really be north of $100. Games cost on average $50 in the 90s. That would be $115 today. If you want to say that distribution of games is cheaper, the cost of living is up, and the industry is raking in record profits and therefore games shouldn’t be as expensive, well, that’s fine. Because you’re correct. Games are cheaper. They’re $45 cheaper than they would be if they followed inflationary trends. It seems like some people haven’t gotten past moving out of their parents house and having to buy their own games and deal with a world where prices are ever changing.
And if you don’t want to pay full price. Don’t. There are countless quality games that can be purchased secondhand for cheap or played for pennies on subscription services.
@Kidfried My argument 100% is not a straw man. But it's funny because you've introduced one yourself. I never said, "that MOST people who are looking forward to this game weren't there from the start." I said, "This seems to be coming from a lot of players . . ." Notice I'm specifically avoiding attributing this opinion to a majority of players (as you accused me of), which would be a massive assumption on my part to assume "most" players think that. I'm intentionally referring to the comments I have read, as in "a lot", not necessarily just here, amounting to saying "I jumped into FF around 10, the series has always changed, this is no different." I am, of course, summarizing. I have also addressed long-time fans, maybe such as yourself, who have expressed comments that amount to, "I'm fine with any FF game so long as it's quality, no matter the genre and gameplay mechanics." You can believe me or not that I've actually read comments like these. I really don't care.
Now, this is all besides the point because the main thrust of my argument is that this game no longer holds the core attributes that defined Final Fantasy's identity that started from its infancy through the height of its relevancy. And since FF10, they have slowly chiseled away at that identity in an attempt to shoehorn the series into a different genre that is at odds with that identity.
@awaltzforvenus Everything you just listed in regards to changes in the early games was expansion of the formula. Iteration by addition. They would take the past game and add new wrinkles to the game design while bringing forward core attributes of the prior games. This is no longer their approach and it has led to the series losing its identity for a great many fans.
@kyleforrester87 Yes, I think they could justify it. I think if they gave it modern production value, added in some interesting iterative wrinkles into the gameplay mechanics (a la chained echoes or Fantasian), and marketed it as a return to the series roots, it would get a lot of people jazzed and build hype. Also, for once use the actual original artwork style of Yoshitaka Amano as the actual design of the game world and characters, as opposed to using jpop stand-ins and ultra realistic cinematics. Amano has a distinctive style that defined FF at its beginning, but it just couldn't be fully realized with old 8, 16, and 64 bit technology. If they actually used the Amano style, not just for the logo designs, the FF series would truly be distinct and own its own animation space, much like how the Zelda games have a distinct style.
@kyleforrester87 Yes, I would definitely agree that FF16 looks better than 15, which was a complete mess. I am thankful for that. And despite my problems with the new entry's game design, I will play it, and will probably mostly enjoy it. I only hope that they'll do what they did with FF9, and make a game that feels like a respectful reimagining of the core aspects of the series. I recently played some of Chained Echoes, and while that game takes a lot more inspiration from Chrono Trigger, I was really impressed how they designed new turned based mechanics that feel fresh and respectful of the genre. I'm also interested in Octopath Traveler 2. I just wish SquareEnix made a game with AAA game production that iterated on where FF9 left off, as opposed to doubling down on design decisions that haven't felt like FF ever since.
@NEStalgia I 100% agree with you. I hear so many people saying that every FF is different and the games have evolved and FF16 is no different. This seems to be coming from a lot of players who haven’t been with it from the start and they don’t realize or don’t acknowledge that the first 9 games were iterations on core unifying characteristics. Turn based, over world, full party based control, exploration based, etc. Each game brought something new, but they kept the core. Around 10 they ditched the over world in favor of linearity and from there the series started to slowly shift from the core gameplay. They abandoned the evolution-through-iteration approach to instead chase other genres for relevancy, slowly disaffecting their original core fan base, which has splintered into groups clamoring for the past or willing to accept anything polished that will elevate the brand with which associate. You have a newer fan base that jumped in around 10 or 12 and they’re like, “but FF has always changed,” because, yeah, that’s when the series started to lose its defining focus, as they floundered about trying to make turn based mechanics feel like real time action. This idea that FF is always changing is literally describing the series when it started to nosedive.
Hmmm, as much as I want to love this, I'm not super stoked. It's just kind of busy. Way too flashy. The thing I loved about old FF games was the spells that were unique and were used more sparingly, which made them feel special. Everything in this is non-stop crazy, hyperactive magical extravaganza that's more distracting than anything else. Half the time, you can't even tell what's going on. Spells look kind of the same, just different colors. Everything looks amazing, but in a kind of boring, samey way. When everything is flashy nothing feels extra cool. Too many numbers on screen in the same hyper active way. When you landed a big hit in past FF it was cool to see higher numbers and get excited about it. But all the numbers on the screen here is just clutter and there's so much of it and it doesn't feel rewarding. Enemy life bars, hit points popping up never ending every which way, hyper active move sets, overly flashy particle effects. All going on at the same time.It's like they were afraid they lose the ADHD crowd. Why do I have a feeling you can just hold down the attack button and Clive will just zip around and swing every which way hyper actively? It all looks very polished, but I just can't help but feel kind of disappointed. Will still give it a go.
@Gilgamax305 With that level of incredulity, you should probably go back to sleep and wake up on the opposite side of the bed you woke up on this morning. Not all Japanese games have annoying voices. That's an absolutely absurd insinuation.
Been waiting to play Kena since it released! Super pumped and glad it payed off to wait. Toss in Doom Eternal and Riders Republic and I’m over the moon.
The old Ada, while more dynamic, sounds like a mustache twirling caricature without an ounce of vulnerability, an overly sexualized female video game stereotype. The new Ada sounds flatter, sure, with a couple moments that don’t sync well with the moment, but it’s generally more realistic with hints of having seen some ***** mixed with a more subdued allure. I would laugh out loud if in real life someone talked to me like the old Ada. Whereas the new Ada comes off like a more natural speech pattern for the most part because the sexualization is more subtle. The new wasn’t recorded as well, not the performer’s fault. Honestly, they’re both not amazing. They’re fine, and I probably prefer the newer voice because it doesn’t sound like sex phone line worker on the other end, which is ridiculous. Anyway, they’re not so drastically different in the grand scheme of things to cause a fuss whatsoever. Would never have crossed my mind if people never brought it up.
Performance mode all the way. What good are 4K visuals when they’re blurred by motion? That detail is lost unless you’re standing still. A less detailed picture that has smoother motion effectively looks better. At least to my eye.
Seems like a lot of people are pretty hyped about the environments. I honestly think they're kind of bland. Looks like more running around in empty spaces. A little skeptical, but I've got my fingers crossed.
I hope everyone here realizes that Apple markets and sells intro products with pro models simultaneously. They coexist with every product cycle from the get-go. And they’re more expensive than gaming consoles. And their product cycles occur every freaking year. Of course, there are differences between smart phones and gaming consoles, but there’s no reason why, at this very moment, that a pro PS5 can’t be released, even considering that the base PS5 hasn’t quite reached its full potential. Even faster load times, more stable frame rates, larger storage, all of these things can be include with a pro version. People will buy it. And that would take nothing away from current base model PS5 owners. Don’t want it? Don’t buy it.
@themightyant Yeah, I feel that Bella Ramsey has a little bit more of an abrasive sass compared to the game’s Ellie having a more endearing sass. Both work for me and they’re coming from the same place at the core of the character. Bella just has a different presence.
This episode did feel like the most rushed of the bunch. It seems they’re spending much more time on the interpersonal drama compared to the action. I wish they’d balance it just a wee more toward the action so we’re not glossing over so much of the game. Maybe it comes down to budget and the number of episodes they were green lit for.
Still solid adaptation overall. Creating a show is so much different than a game. A game has so much more flexibility with changing elements of production. There will always be differences with these sort of things.
@zupertramp Yes, it’s different, but I would call that softening the harsher edges of his character. “So fundamentally different” seems a bit hyperbolic. The core of Joel’s character is his grief over his daughter and his expanding capacity to care for Ellie. He is still gruff, selfish, emotionally withdrawn, brutal, and an adapt survivalist, despite showing some signs of slowing down. I have a feeling they’re seeding Joel’s character development from the second game a bit earlier, so that when we get the more emotionally open and settled down Joel for the second season it ties together a bit better. But “so fundamentally different” is kind of making a mountain out of a mole hill.
@zupertramp Which character is "so fundamentally different"? That seems a bit of a stretch. Minor differences sure. Their core characteristics are the same.
@jimbouk I don't think any rational person expected the PS Plus Collection to exist forever. It was an incentive to be a PS5 early adopter. You can still play them if you add them to your library as long as you're a member. This is absolutely no indictment of digital gaming. My goodness.
@ItsBritneyB_tch Yes, heroism is more subtle. Going out guns blazing is the most in your face aggressive form of heroism. Cliche. Versus remaining calm and still when faced with body horror. Rarely depicted. Being calm in a dangerous situation is a more subtle depiction of heroism. Absolutely.
Different actions can be equally heroic. You seem to just like blam blam kind of heroism.
I would agree that the the lighter not lighting is also a cliche. Along the lines of an engine not starting.
But someone getting injured and staying behind and sacrificing themselves so others can escape is also a story cliche, done countless times.
So are you criticizing the original game for being unoriginal?
Lighters can be finicky to start in the real world. They just walked through water. It was probably wet. So it at least does make sense.
@ItsBritneyB_tch Tess’ death was still incredibly heroic. I’d argue it was even more so. It was just far more subtle. It would take huge balls to remain still and calm while an infected zombie is leaning in to infect you with tendrils visibly coming out of its mouth, not knowing for certain that at any moment it might start tearing into her. She assumes that if she tries to run, the hoard will get her before she can ignite the gasoline. And if she doesn’t ignite the gasoline then the hoard will likely get Ellie and Joel. She overcomes all the fear of death and and body horror, and keeps still and calm, so as not to agitate the hoard. That takes as much fortitude as holding off soldiers. How you view her TV death as less heroic is baffling. Unless you think that having a gun somehow is the pinnacle of being heroic.
It was a great episode on its own, but I am somewhat disappointed that Joel and Ellie didn’t meet up with Bill while he was alive. I feel like they could have had an extra episode to follow up on this one to cover that section of the game. It was still a beautiful reimagining, and I did love how Bill’s purpose in life is being passed onto Joel by finding purpose in protecting someone in this world. At the end of the day, we still have the game. And we have the show. They don’t have to be exactly the same. They can rhyme with each other.
Everyone needs to relax about the spores. They’ll still probably be in the show, as the creators themselves have indicted in interviews that the door has been left open for them to appear later. They likely just don’t want to overuse elements that are used repetitively in the game, and they wanted to further differentiate the mythos from other zombie stories by including the tendrils, which were inspired by concept art. I have a feeling we will indeed be introduced to spores. Bloaters anyone?
Just hearing about this now and definitely looks good. But I could really do without the style of childish voice acting at the beginning. Is that the little dragon’s voice? Drives me up the wall.
Heaven forbid anyone use this controller while playing Elden Ring though, otherwise it might make it easier than had they played it with the standard controller, the controller the game was originally intended to be played with.
@thefourfoldroot1 Please allow this to compute. Liam in his comment to you was not objecting to R or SA in games nor was he advocating for censorship of those topics in his comment to you or in the article. He was objecting to the style in which you wrote the topic that amounted to brushing off the severity of it in an insensitive manner from his perspective. Period. That's it. That's all.
Furthermore, the article quite clearly says, "When questioned whether the cutscene had been altered or not, Jasińska essentially returned a no comment." But he's not making a value judgement on the right or wrongness of this non-admission. There is a discussion to have here around censorship, for sure. There's also a discussion to be had around casual violence toward women in media that was very prevalent during the era in which the original game was made. It's a more complex discussion than you're making it seem when essentially saying, "Censorship bad!"
@thefourfoldroot1 No, you continue playing dumb by divorcing yourself from the incorrect assumption you made that SA as written in the article did not entail R. That is your mistake. Not Liam's. Where did Liam say that R can't be in a game? His objection was the way in which you dismissed the topic offhand, not the topic itself.
@IrishMcGamer @thefourfoldroot1 This is the place to discuss this because you brought it here and then played dumb and obtuse about what was being talked about.
You know what sexual assault can entail, and you ignored it so that you could stay consistent in your argument.
I'm not speaking for other survivors. I'm addressing the way in which the comments were made.
Please refer to Liam's objection, "You ignored the fact it's a rape scene just to say it's being removed to appease the modern generation."
There are ways in which to discuss and argue for the inclusion of sensitive topics without the offhand exclusion of their severity and resorting to what amounts to a surface-level objection to modern sensibilities.
@thefourfoldroot1 You're being intentionally obtuse. Everyone knows that sexual assault has a very high possibility of entailing rape, and you blew right past it, and now you're splitting hairs and insensitively playing semantics, as if you were ignorant to the probability of what was actually being discussed. Don't play dumb and deflect blame on others when you could have used a little tact and inferred the unsaid with ease. And let's not pretend that a family member having cancer and dying, while awful and triggering in its own right, is not on the same level of experiencing violent sexual assault first hand from another human being. These are vastly different experiences with different long-last psychological effects, one that you watch happen to someone else and another that happens directly to you. Bad analogy.
@Nightcrawler71 The whole "You can't do this because you don't have the right equipment" is modeled on the Metroidvania genre of games. This is a known element of these two games. But with a traditional Metroidvania you have to remember those previously unaccessible areas, and once you have the right equipment it's necessary to double back to progress in the game. The easy thing about GOW is that the Metroidvania aspects are for the most part unnecessary. So if you don't want to want to use your brain to remember where stuff is and double back for secrets you don't have to in order to finish the game. The NPCs and map markers tell you where to go for the main questline. You can get plenty of resources to craft good enough gear to get you through the game. You're complaining about largely optional stuff. There was once a day in gaming when secrets were secrets and mysterious hard-to-reach areas were seen as a rewarding challenge.
@EaglyTheKawaiiShika Show me where I said, "[You] don’t know the first thing about running a game company". Yeah, this conversation does become ridiculous when you misconstrue what I write and bang on about a logical fallacy based on a point I was not making. But by all means continue lofting your uneducated opinion over professionals who are actually experts in their field and lead an industry.
@EaglyTheKawaiiShika Lol, I never said you don't know the first thing about running a video game company.
This is what I sarcastically said: The industry leader in video games doesn't know what they're doing or have statistics to back up their strategy. You should be running Sony with what I'm sure is great business acumen.
I'm sarcastically suggesting here that it's ludicrous that you, some random gamer on Pushsquare, think you know better than the professionals who are literally in the business of making Sony the leader in the video game industry. You think you know better than they do about how timed exclusivity actually works and whether or not it benefits the company.
Why is it that you think you know what is best for Sony's business strategy when you have access to virtually none of the insider information that these business professionals have access to and rely upon to craft the company's business strategy?
Everything I said after that was my own opinion based on widely accepted marketing tactics that you don't have to a brain surgeon to understand. None of which you actually refuted.
But, no, I'm not trying to say that I know what is best for Sony. And I'm in no way shape or form suggesting I know better than you or anyone else about what it takes to run a video game company. But you are by proclaiming that timed exclusivity is basically pointless. Like, seriously, how are you evening remotely equipped to make this statement? It's crazy to think that you know more than insiders who have access to the data, sales reports, business plans, etc. Just so ludicrous.
@EaglyTheKawaiiShika Lol, yes, I can say what I said because I said it. You're trying to demean me by likening my response to something Jim Ryan would say as opposed to actually countering the points I made by standing up for your own opinions with rationale reasoning. Lame tactics.
Yes, PC gamers are a different breed and may be less likely to migrate to PS than from a rival console competitor. But you have to understand, that perceived exclusivity, whether it's timed or not, is about brand recognition. PS wants to be the place associated with FF. They want to be the place that always gets it first. That builds the PS brand and retains loyalty.
Maybe that doesn't work on you. But it does on a lot of people. I, for one, grew up on FF. I played Nintendo because of FF. And I now play PS because of FF. I like the convenience of a console, but I don't care what console I play so long as they have FF as soon as possible. This is what Sony is banking on. That is their strategy, and it is one they've stuck to the majority of time since the launch of the original PS and FF7.
They do it for a reason because it clearly benefits them. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that. But, yeah, gone on about how it would benefit PS more to assume risk heavily in an unknown project than to moderately invest in timed-exclusivity with a franchise they have a long standing history with, contributes toward their brand recognition and gamer retention, and is wildly successful.
In any case, PS already does invest in new IP regularly. It turns out they do both! Wild idea.
@EaglyTheKawaiiShika Yeah, Sony just shelled out millions for timed exclusivity without it benefiting them. You're totally right. The industry leader in video games doesn't know what they're doing or have statistics to back up their strategy. You should be running Sony with what I'm sure is great business acumen.
Your hot take is an absolute joke.
Anyone with half a brain knows the high level of anticipation and media engagement generated for the PS5 when the slate of games were first being announced near launch. FF16 headlined many of those presentations. It has been hotly anticipated and has only picked up steam since. People are basically salivating for this game. To think that that doesn't affect sales of the PS5 is beyond mind boggling.
People who are not delusional know that a 6-month exclusivity does not mean that the game is going to Xbox in 6 months. It's likely going to PC after 6 months. Same as FF7R. When it goes to Xbox is anyones guess. PS is the place to play FF16, and fans of the series are not going to buy Xbox to play it later down the road. Console gamers who want to play FF16 are buying a PS. End of story.
Honestly, my only major complaint for the first game was how lacking the game was in varying enemy types. Aside from that it was an absolute masterpiece. So pumped about a sequel.
@Shad361 Buying exclusivity is not wasting money. It is cheaper to buy a timed exclusive than it is to develop an entire game. Having that exclusivity to games, even if they're timed, can massively affect console choice among gamers. This contributes to keeping PS competitive and profitable and the current leader in the market. People in this very comment section have stated they specifically bought a PS5 because Playstation had timed exclusivity to this game. That is not wasted money.
@Eagly Bragging rights? No. That is stupid and juvenile. Convenience to play it early? Yes. Only tools brag. I have no interest in bragging. Most FF fans want to play it as soon as possible. That's all. Period. Bringing up bragging rights is seriously baffling. The vast, vast majority of Final Fantasy games throughout the series history have been console exclusives or timed exclusives to either Nintendo or PS. Final Fantasy games on Xbox at release have been the acceptation, not the rule. This is because Sony PS has always had a closer relationship with SquareEnix compared to Microsoft. This is a result of business relationships, a long-formed history over the years, and business strategy. It's not to give a middle finger to Xbox fans. It is to add to the allure of the PS platform so that the platform remains competitive with Xbox and attractive to gamers. You say that Sony could have made another game to bolster the console. Somehow I doubt you know the best strategy for Sony to bolster it's console. Buying exclusivity is cheaper than developing an entire game. And having exclusivity bolsters fans excitement for the system and commit to the system. Yes, of course, it's a contest between consoles. It's called business, and markets do not have infinite growth, so there is competition. There's nothing petty about it.
@Eagly You get to play the game 6 months sooner than you would if you were on any other system. So, yes, you do get something out of it if you intend to play it within the first 6 months of release. And if you want to play it at a cheaper price, used PS copies will be floating around sooner than they will be elsewhere.
@Tharsman Not everyone thinks the same. A one-month subscription to PS+ Extra is $15, enough time to finish the game. That's less than the cost of God Of War standalone by your numbers. When Ragnarok is advertised as a brand new game, a percentage of people who never played the first will sign up for the service to catch up on the series because they also get access to a bunch of other games they might want to try out. People who played the first game years ago may be interested in signing up if they sold their copy and want to play it, again, before the second comes out. There could very well be an uptick in subscriptions when looking at the broad player base and their different motivations. How big that uptick is is anyone's guess, but it's not an unreasonable assumption that the release of such a massive title will generate interest in the first game. And PS+ Extra is the most affordable option to try it out.
@Tharsman The upcoming release of God Of War Ragnarok will generate interest in playing the first game in anticipation. The first game is on PS+. Thus the new game will drive players to subscribe to PS+ to play the first game, possibly increasing subscriptions.
It's absolutely zero surprise that there's been a steady backslide in membership from the height of the pandemic when people were staying home and playing more.
@jrt87 After updating the game, was CDPR nominated for a "tradesman of the year" award equivalent?
Hardly. People are just rediscovering it because of a well-time anime used to market the game now that the game is in solid shape.
You can still praise the game for what it is and simultaneously recognize the poor state it was in when released.
These two things are not mutually exclusive, and your average player isn't going to be a negative, axe-grinding Nancy about the game's release for infinite.
I've put in about 40 hours in the last couple weeks. It started feeling very, very immersive. I was very impressed and I enjoyed the story. There is, however, plenty to critique about the game that has been well documented, but I find that with most open world games. As time has passed, I have felt less immersed because when navigating the open world I don't seem to stumble upon side missions/stories like I would in The Witcher 3. In that game, you'd randomly talk to someone and it would kick off a whole adventure. In Cyberpunk, everyone just calls you and suddenly you have a new mission. Missions, however, don't seem to organically spring up out of wandering. I don't know, maybe I'm driving too much and missing them if they're there. That said, the side missions that you get calls for are enjoyable for what they are, and in general I enjoy the game well enough. Given the controversy of the game's release, I'm glad that it has a new lease on life, and I hope CD Projekt Red has learned a lesson.
“Tribalism, as you describe it, has zero to do with anything.”
I don’t know, man. This was a pretty broad all-encompassing statement. Pardon me for misconstruing your hyperbole.
Even still, you say you understand tribalism. And yet you say tribalism has nothing to do with your opinion.
And then you say: "If I have a slight preference for Ellie, it is probably because I want to see characters from TLOU in a sequel to TLOU."
This is a tribal statement. Showing preference for a group, .I.e the previous game’s characters, due to a sense of familiarity.
So on one hand you say tribalism isn’t part of your opinion, and on the other hand you’re showing signs of tribalism while saying an opinion.
And you seem to want to undermine the thematics of tribalism by cutting the playtime as Abby.
There is an incongruity between your statements is all I’m saying. I’m not saying you’re completely unfamiliar with the idea of tribalism. But it does seem like you’re missing how the game is intentionally using the idea of tribalism to manipulate our feeling about Abby and Ellie on some level.
If you shortchange Abby’s playtime the tribal experiment the game is executing on the player would be ruined.
@Westernwolf4 it’s funny that you think that tribalism has nothing to do with this game. Which suggests you don’t understand this game as well as you think you do. Seraphites. Fireflies. WLF. Rattlers. Factions. In other words tribes. Tribalism has EVERYTHING to do with this game. It’s embedded in the game’s DNA. And how we relate to Ellie and Abby directly is influenced by our tribal relations to these characters. We start out as a tribe as players with Ellie and Joel in the first game. We are a tribe of three. Ellie. Joel. The player. We highly relate to them based on our familiarity. Familiarity is what gels a tribe, in part. Abby is unfamiliar to use in the second game and is distinctly in conflict with our tribe, Joel and Ellie. Tribalism blocks our ability to extend empathetic understanding to those we find ourselves in opposition with. This game wants to challenge are tribal nature by placing someone outside of our tribe on equal footing with those inside our tribe. To extend the same empathy. That you want Abby’s gameplay time to be shortened while showing preference to Ellie suggests that tribalism does indeed affect how you’re approaching this game in contrast with how the game is actively requesting that you give up your tribal affiliation by giving Abby her due as a full co-lead alongside Ellie.
"If I have a slight preference for Ellie, it is probably because I want to see characters from TLOU in a sequel to TLOU."
This is the inherent tribalism the game is exposing. Learning to empathize equally with people even when you have a greater attachment originally with one person.
You've expressing exposed the point. Some people have much greater reactions to Abby's equal role. Yours is not as great. But it's still there. That is what the game is exposing.
@liljazzy2 I would then recommend doing some reading up on converging plot lines as a narrative device. Your opinion that TLOU2 has a convoluted narrative appears to, in part, lie in your unfamiliarity with this writing technique.
Just because something seems convoluted doesn't mean that it does not fulfill an artistic intent.
A painter can paint an ugly painting with the intent of illustrating a truth. That truth justifies painting something that is ugly. If you just look at the painting and say, "I don't like this painting because it's ugly," that just shows you don't understand the intent of the work.
When you call a converging plot line convoluted as a negative, it suggests you don't understand the artistic intent of using a converging plot line as a device.
Something being convoluted is not inherently a negative if there is a reason for it. And there is very much a reason why TLOU2 is structured the way it is.
@Westernwolf4 C'mon now. We are discussing Abby's role in the narrative and how that adds length to the narrative. We are not talking about running around and collecting items that have little to no bearing on the central plot dynamics.
There are 144 collectibles in the first game and nearly double that in the second while hidden in much larger environments. If you want to complain about the game being too long that's not on Abby's involvement.
You can make just about any game unbearably long by collecting every last thing. But that's not what we're truthfully talking about.
My actual argument is that our playtime as Abby is just as vital as our playtime with Ellie.
If you want to argue shortening Abby's story, then you have to shorten Ellie's. (But even if you do this I think this would undermine the goal of wearing out the player on an emotional level). Because the game's intent is to put them on equal footing.
If you want to belabor calling it a long game (which I still contend that it's not in the grand scheme of gaming) and if you want to shorten it overall, you can't just remove parts of Abby's story. You'd have to shorten the entire game to maintain the artistic intent of the game.
Jumping immediately to trimming Abby's role without acknowledging that you would need to trim Ellie's, as well, to maintain the balance the game is intent on striking, betrays a misunderstanding of the intent behind the narrative's form.
I admit to exaggerating the pittance statement. My point was that you don't seem to want Abby's role to be as large as Ellie's, as evidenced by your preference to jump immediately to only reducing Abby's role.
This betrays hints of tribalism, subconsciously or otherwise, in favor of Ellie. This game is daring you not to be tribal.
But we're not talking about 100%ing a game. Cyberpunk takes about 25 hours to complete the main story, but you can spend upwards of a 100 hours to doing everything. And, yet people actually complain that Cyberpunk's main quest is too short.
The extra hours are simply gameplay minutia that you're free to play or not. Heck, you can draw out Uncharted 4 to like 30+ hours searching out every nook and cranny for collectibles. But that's still a short to medium length main game. Obsessively searching out collectibles is separate from the main narrative. TLOUS 2 is still a medium length game for the intent of this discussion.
In regards to hammering the themes in. Abby had to go on a journey of her own to put her on the same narrative and sympathetic level as Ellie and Joel. So, again, minimizing her narrative would diminish her footing with Ellie and Joel as an equally sympathetic and important character, and the thematic goals would not be met.
It's like you argue you know the thematics of the game without allowing the thematics of the game to actually play out. This game is intended to be as much Abby's game as it is Ellie's game. Not surprisingly you play as each for about the same exact time.
The game wants you to give equal credence to both these characters. Diminishing Abby undermines this goal.
You say: "They could have done half of the Abby section and still made their point."
No, they absolutely could not have. That would betray the intent of the game.
Comments 374
Re: Poll: What Review Score Would You Give Horizon Forbidden West: Burning Shores?
@AtlanteanMan
Straight sexuality is all over video games and nobody review bombs a game because of it.
In the Witcher 3, Geralt can bone like 10 different women in gratuitous fashion, and it's hardly important to the central narrative.
Get out here with your defense of selective outrage.
Re: Can You Put a Price on a Quality RPG? Yes, and It's Rising All the Time
I don’t care about the price. I care about quality. Developers seem to think massive maps and endless map markers equals quality so long as it looks pretty. It does not. Reduce map size and the number of markers. I don’t care about hoofing it across some huge pretty, meaningless void to get more dumb armor for the fiftieth time. And I don’t need to be told where it is. Let me find it. Give me some clues (but please don’t always copy Elden Ring level of crypticness). Let me use my brain.
Focus on quality mechanics that are fun, on quests that have depth that are truly rewarding, make secret items feel rare and special instead of redundant and superfluous.
$70 is not a lot for a game. I don’t care what others here say. This is a fair price for the amount of entertainment we get from massive productions. And when you factor in inflation games should really be north of $100. Games cost on average $50 in the 90s. That would be $115 today. If you want to say that distribution of games is cheaper, the cost of living is up, and the industry is raking in record profits and therefore games shouldn’t be as expensive, well, that’s fine. Because you’re correct. Games are cheaper. They’re $45 cheaper than they would be if they followed inflationary trends. It seems like some people haven’t gotten past moving out of their parents house and having to buy their own games and deal with a world where prices are ever changing.
And if you don’t want to pay full price. Don’t. There are countless quality games that can be purchased secondhand for cheap or played for pennies on subscription services.
Quality over price always.
Re: Soapbox: Final Fantasy 16 Is the Most Excited I've Been for the Series in Almost 20 Years
@Kidfried My argument 100% is not a straw man. But it's funny because you've introduced one yourself. I never said, "that MOST people who are looking forward to this game weren't there from the start." I said, "This seems to be coming from a lot of players . . ." Notice I'm specifically avoiding attributing this opinion to a majority of players (as you accused me of), which would be a massive assumption on my part to assume "most" players think that. I'm intentionally referring to the comments I have read, as in "a lot", not necessarily just here, amounting to saying "I jumped into FF around 10, the series has always changed, this is no different." I am, of course, summarizing. I have also addressed long-time fans, maybe such as yourself, who have expressed comments that amount to, "I'm fine with any FF game so long as it's quality, no matter the genre and gameplay mechanics." You can believe me or not that I've actually read comments like these. I really don't care.
Now, this is all besides the point because the main thrust of my argument is that this game no longer holds the core attributes that defined Final Fantasy's identity that started from its infancy through the height of its relevancy. And since FF10, they have slowly chiseled away at that identity in an attempt to shoehorn the series into a different genre that is at odds with that identity.
Re: Soapbox: Final Fantasy 16 Is the Most Excited I've Been for the Series in Almost 20 Years
@awaltzforvenus Everything you just listed in regards to changes in the early games was expansion of the formula. Iteration by addition. They would take the past game and add new wrinkles to the game design while bringing forward core attributes of the prior games. This is no longer their approach and it has led to the series losing its identity for a great many fans.
Re: Soapbox: Final Fantasy 16 Is the Most Excited I've Been for the Series in Almost 20 Years
@kyleforrester87 Yes, I think they could justify it. I think if they gave it modern production value, added in some interesting iterative wrinkles into the gameplay mechanics (a la chained echoes or Fantasian), and marketed it as a return to the series roots, it would get a lot of people jazzed and build hype. Also, for once use the actual original artwork style of Yoshitaka Amano as the actual design of the game world and characters, as opposed to using jpop stand-ins and ultra realistic cinematics. Amano has a distinctive style that defined FF at its beginning, but it just couldn't be fully realized with old 8, 16, and 64 bit technology. If they actually used the Amano style, not just for the logo designs, the FF series would truly be distinct and own its own animation space, much like how the Zelda games have a distinct style.
Re: Soapbox: Final Fantasy 16 Is the Most Excited I've Been for the Series in Almost 20 Years
@kyleforrester87 Yes, I would definitely agree that FF16 looks better than 15, which was a complete mess. I am thankful for that. And despite my problems with the new entry's game design, I will play it, and will probably mostly enjoy it. I only hope that they'll do what they did with FF9, and make a game that feels like a respectful reimagining of the core aspects of the series. I recently played some of Chained Echoes, and while that game takes a lot more inspiration from Chrono Trigger, I was really impressed how they designed new turned based mechanics that feel fresh and respectful of the genre. I'm also interested in Octopath Traveler 2. I just wish SquareEnix made a game with AAA game production that iterated on where FF9 left off, as opposed to doubling down on design decisions that haven't felt like FF ever since.
Re: Soapbox: Final Fantasy 16 Is the Most Excited I've Been for the Series in Almost 20 Years
@NEStalgia I 100% agree with you. I hear so many people saying that every FF is different and the games have evolved and FF16 is no different. This seems to be coming from a lot of players who haven’t been with it from the start and they don’t realize or don’t acknowledge that the first 9 games were iterations on core unifying characteristics. Turn based, over world, full party based control, exploration based, etc. Each game brought something new, but they kept the core. Around 10 they ditched the over world in favor of linearity and from there the series started to slowly shift from the core gameplay. They abandoned the evolution-through-iteration approach to instead chase other genres for relevancy, slowly disaffecting their original core fan base, which has splintered into groups clamoring for the past or willing to accept anything polished that will elevate the brand with which associate. You have a newer fan base that jumped in around 10 or 12 and they’re like, “but FF has always changed,” because, yeah, that’s when the series started to lose its defining focus, as they floundered about trying to make turn based mechanics feel like real time action. This idea that FF is always changing is literally describing the series when it started to nosedive.
Re: Watch 25 Minutes of Final Fantasy 16 PS5 Gameplay in Glorious 4K
Hmmm, as much as I want to love this, I'm not super stoked. It's just kind of busy. Way too flashy. The thing I loved about old FF games was the spells that were unique and were used more sparingly, which made them feel special. Everything in this is non-stop crazy, hyperactive magical extravaganza that's more distracting than anything else. Half the time, you can't even tell what's going on. Spells look kind of the same, just different colors. Everything looks amazing, but in a kind of boring, samey way. When everything is flashy nothing feels extra cool. Too many numbers on screen in the same hyper active way. When you landed a big hit in past FF it was cool to see higher numbers and get excited about it. But all the numbers on the screen here is just clutter and there's so much of it and it doesn't feel rewarding. Enemy life bars, hit points popping up never ending every which way, hyper active move sets, overly flashy particle effects. All going on at the same time.It's like they were afraid they lose the ADHD crowd. Why do I have a feeling you can just hold down the attack button and Clive will just zip around and swing every which way hyper actively? It all looks very polished, but I just can't help but feel kind of disappointed. Will still give it a go.
Re: Granblue Fantasy: Relink Still Looks Superb, Still No Release Date
@Gilgamax305 With that level of incredulity, you should probably go back to sleep and wake up on the opposite side of the bed you woke up on this morning. Not all Japanese games have annoying voices. That's an absolutely absurd insinuation.
Re: 16 Games Hit PS Plus Extra, Premium Next Week
Been waiting to play Kena since it released! Super pumped and glad it payed off to wait. Toss in Doom Eternal and Riders Republic and I’m over the moon.
Re: Resident Evil 4's Ada Wong Responds to Social Media Abuse
The old Ada, while more dynamic, sounds like a mustache twirling caricature without an ounce of vulnerability, an overly sexualized female video game stereotype. The new Ada sounds flatter, sure, with a couple moments that don’t sync well with the moment, but it’s generally more realistic with hints of having seen some ***** mixed with a more subdued allure. I would laugh out loud if in real life someone talked to me like the old Ada. Whereas the new Ada comes off like a more natural speech pattern for the most part because the sexualization is more subtle. The new wasn’t recorded as well, not the performer’s fault. Honestly, they’re both not amazing. They’re fine, and I probably prefer the newer voice because it doesn’t sound like sex phone line worker on the other end, which is ridiculous. Anyway, they’re not so drastically different in the grand scheme of things to cause a fuss whatsoever. Would never have crossed my mind if people never brought it up.
Re: Why You Should Pay Attention to PS Plus' Tails of Iron on PS5, PS4
I sank dozens of hours into Hollow Knight and loved it. Been waiting on Silk Song for ages it seems. This may scratch that itch.
Re: Final Fantasy 16 Will Look Stunning at 60fps on PS5
Performance mode all the way. What good are 4K visuals when they’re blurred by motion? That detail is lost unless you’re standing still. A less detailed picture that has smoother motion effectively looks better. At least to my eye.
Re: Final Fantasy 16 Dev Team Fields Fans' Snarkiest Questions in PAX East Panel
Seems like a lot of people are pretty hyped about the environments. I honestly think they're kind of bland. Looks like more running around in empty spaces. A little skeptical, but I've got my fingers crossed.
Re: Talking Point: Is 2024 Too Soon for PS5 Pro?
I hope everyone here realizes that Apple markets and sells intro products with pro models simultaneously. They coexist with every product cycle from the get-go. And they’re more expensive than gaming consoles. And their product cycles occur every freaking year. Of course, there are differences between smart phones and gaming consoles, but there’s no reason why, at this very moment, that a pro PS5 can’t be released, even considering that the base PS5 hasn’t quite reached its full potential. Even faster load times, more stable frame rates, larger storage, all of these things can be include with a pro version. People will buy it. And that would take nothing away from current base model PS5 owners. Don’t want it? Don’t buy it.
Re: TV Show Review: The Last of Us (HBO) Episode 6 - Brothers Bond as Pace Quickens
@themightyant Yeah, I feel that Bella Ramsey has a little bit more of an abrasive sass compared to the game’s Ellie having a more endearing sass. Both work for me and they’re coming from the same place at the core of the character. Bella just has a different presence.
This episode did feel like the most rushed of the bunch. It seems they’re spending much more time on the interpersonal drama compared to the action. I wish they’d balance it just a wee more toward the action so we’re not glossing over so much of the game. Maybe it comes down to budget and the number of episodes they were green lit for.
Still solid adaptation overall. Creating a show is so much different than a game. A game has so much more flexibility with changing elements of production. There will always be differences with these sort of things.
Re: TV Show Review: The Last of Us (HBO) Episode 6 - Brothers Bond as Pace Quickens
@zupertramp Yes, it’s different, but I would call that softening the harsher edges of his character. “So fundamentally different” seems a bit hyperbolic. The core of Joel’s character is his grief over his daughter and his expanding capacity to care for Ellie. He is still gruff, selfish, emotionally withdrawn, brutal, and an adapt survivalist, despite showing some signs of slowing down. I have a feeling they’re seeding Joel’s character development from the second game a bit earlier, so that when we get the more emotionally open and settled down Joel for the second season it ties together a bit better. But “so fundamentally different” is kind of making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Re: TV Show Review: The Last of Us (HBO) Episode 6 - Brothers Bond as Pace Quickens
@zupertramp Which character is "so fundamentally different"? That seems a bit of a stretch. Minor differences sure. Their core characteristics are the same.
Re: PS Plus Members Lose 19 Games in May as Sony Drops PS Plus Collection
@jimbouk I don't think any rational person expected the PS Plus Collection to exist forever. It was an incentive to be a PS5 early adopter. You can still play them if you add them to your library as long as you're a member. This is absolutely no indictment of digital gaming. My goodness.
Re: TV Show Review: The Last Of Us (HBO) Episode 3 - Television At Its Finest
@ItsBritneyB_tch Yes, heroism is more subtle. Going out guns blazing is the most in your face aggressive form of heroism. Cliche. Versus remaining calm and still when faced with body horror. Rarely depicted. Being calm in a dangerous situation is a more subtle depiction of heroism. Absolutely.
Different actions can be equally heroic. You seem to just like blam blam kind of heroism.
I would agree that the the lighter not lighting is also a cliche. Along the lines of an engine not starting.
But someone getting injured and staying behind and sacrificing themselves so others can escape is also a story cliche, done countless times.
So are you criticizing the original game for being unoriginal?
Lighters can be finicky to start in the real world. They just walked through water. It was probably wet. So it at least does make sense.
Re: TV Show Review: The Last Of Us (HBO) Episode 3 - Television At Its Finest
@ItsBritneyB_tch Tess’ death was still incredibly heroic. I’d argue it was even more so. It was just far more subtle. It would take huge balls to remain still and calm while an infected zombie is leaning in to infect you with tendrils visibly coming out of its mouth, not knowing for certain that at any moment it might start tearing into her. She assumes that if she tries to run, the hoard will get her before she can ignite the gasoline. And if she doesn’t ignite the gasoline then the hoard will likely get Ellie and Joel. She overcomes all the fear of death and and body horror, and keeps still and calm, so as not to agitate the hoard. That takes as much fortitude as holding off soldiers. How you view her TV death as less heroic is baffling. Unless you think that having a gun somehow is the pinnacle of being heroic.
Re: Poll: Was The Last of Us - Episode 3 the Best One Yet?
It was a great episode on its own, but I am somewhat disappointed that Joel and Ellie didn’t meet up with Bill while he was alive. I feel like they could have had an extra episode to follow up on this one to cover that section of the game. It was still a beautiful reimagining, and I did love how Bill’s purpose in life is being passed onto Joel by finding purpose in protecting someone in this world. At the end of the day, we still have the game. And we have the show. They don’t have to be exactly the same. They can rhyme with each other.
Re: TV Show Review: The Last of Us (HBO) Episode 2 - Establishing a New Lore
Everyone needs to relax about the spores. They’ll still probably be in the show, as the creators themselves have indicted in interviews that the door has been left open for them to appear later. They likely just don’t want to overuse elements that are used repetitively in the game, and they wanted to further differentiate the mythos from other zombie stories by including the tendrils, which were inspired by concept art. I have a feeling we will indeed be introduced to spores. Bloaters anyone?
Re: Granblue Fantasy: Relink Still Looks Superb, Still No Release Date
Just hearing about this now and definitely looks good. But I could really do without the style of childish voice acting at the beginning. Is that the little dragon’s voice? Drives me up the wall.
Re: Sony Has Been Working on PS5's Accessibility Controller for Years
Heaven forbid anyone use this controller while playing Elden Ring though, otherwise it might make it easier than had they played it with the standard controller, the controller the game was originally intended to be played with.
Re: Silent Hill 2 Remake Dev Taking 'Very Safe Approach' to Any Changes
@thefourfoldroot1 Please allow this to compute. Liam in his comment to you was not objecting to R or SA in games nor was he advocating for censorship of those topics in his comment to you or in the article. He was objecting to the style in which you wrote the topic that amounted to brushing off the severity of it in an insensitive manner from his perspective. Period. That's it. That's all.
Furthermore, the article quite clearly says, "When questioned whether the cutscene had been altered or not, Jasińska essentially returned a no comment." But he's not making a value judgement on the right or wrongness of this non-admission. There is a discussion to have here around censorship, for sure. There's also a discussion to be had around casual violence toward women in media that was very prevalent during the era in which the original game was made. It's a more complex discussion than you're making it seem when essentially saying, "Censorship bad!"
Re: Silent Hill 2 Remake Dev Taking 'Very Safe Approach' to Any Changes
@thefourfoldroot1 No, you continue playing dumb by divorcing yourself from the incorrect assumption you made that SA as written in the article did not entail R. That is your mistake. Not Liam's. Where did Liam say that R can't be in a game? His objection was the way in which you dismissed the topic offhand, not the topic itself.
Re: Silent Hill 2 Remake Dev Taking 'Very Safe Approach' to Any Changes
@IrishMcGamer @thefourfoldroot1 This is the place to discuss this because you brought it here and then played dumb and obtuse about what was being talked about.
You know what sexual assault can entail, and you ignored it so that you could stay consistent in your argument.
I'm not speaking for other survivors. I'm addressing the way in which the comments were made.
Please refer to Liam's objection, "You ignored the fact it's a rape scene just to say it's being removed to appease the modern generation."
There are ways in which to discuss and argue for the inclusion of sensitive topics without the offhand exclusion of their severity and resorting to what amounts to a surface-level objection to modern sensibilities.
Try and be a little more nuanced.
Re: Silent Hill 2 Remake Dev Taking 'Very Safe Approach' to Any Changes
@thefourfoldroot1 You're being intentionally obtuse. Everyone knows that sexual assault has a very high possibility of entailing rape, and you blew right past it, and now you're splitting hairs and insensitively playing semantics, as if you were ignorant to the probability of what was actually being discussed. Don't play dumb and deflect blame on others when you could have used a little tact and inferred the unsaid with ease. And let's not pretend that a family member having cancer and dying, while awful and triggering in its own right, is not on the same level of experiencing violent sexual assault first hand from another human being. These are vastly different experiences with different long-last psychological effects, one that you watch happen to someone else and another that happens directly to you. Bad analogy.
Re: 25% of Players Have Beaten God of War Ragnarok, Two Weeks After Release
@Nightcrawler71 The whole "You can't do this because you don't have the right equipment" is modeled on the Metroidvania genre of games. This is a known element of these two games. But with a traditional Metroidvania you have to remember those previously unaccessible areas, and once you have the right equipment it's necessary to double back to progress in the game. The easy thing about GOW is that the Metroidvania aspects are for the most part unnecessary. So if you don't want to want to use your brain to remember where stuff is and double back for secrets you don't have to in order to finish the game. The NPCs and map markers tell you where to go for the main questline. You can get plenty of resources to craft good enough gear to get you through the game. You're complaining about largely optional stuff. There was once a day in gaming when secrets were secrets and mysterious hard-to-reach areas were seen as a rewarding challenge.
Re: Final Fantasy 16 Is Exclusive to PS5 for Six Months, Sony Confirms
@EaglyTheKawaiiShika Show me where I said, "[You] don’t know the first thing about running a game company". Yeah, this conversation does become ridiculous when you misconstrue what I write and bang on about a logical fallacy based on a point I was not making. But by all means continue lofting your uneducated opinion over professionals who are actually experts in their field and lead an industry.
Re: Final Fantasy 16 Is Exclusive to PS5 for Six Months, Sony Confirms
@EaglyTheKawaiiShika Lol, I never said you don't know the first thing about running a video game company.
This is what I sarcastically said: The industry leader in video games doesn't know what they're doing or have statistics to back up their strategy. You should be running Sony with what I'm sure is great business acumen.
I'm sarcastically suggesting here that it's ludicrous that you, some random gamer on Pushsquare, think you know better than the professionals who are literally in the business of making Sony the leader in the video game industry. You think you know better than they do about how timed exclusivity actually works and whether or not it benefits the company.
Why is it that you think you know what is best for Sony's business strategy when you have access to virtually none of the insider information that these business professionals have access to and rely upon to craft the company's business strategy?
Everything I said after that was my own opinion based on widely accepted marketing tactics that you don't have to a brain surgeon to understand. None of which you actually refuted.
But, no, I'm not trying to say that I know what is best for Sony. And I'm in no way shape or form suggesting I know better than you or anyone else about what it takes to run a video game company. But you are by proclaiming that timed exclusivity is basically pointless. Like, seriously, how are you evening remotely equipped to make this statement? It's crazy to think that you know more than insiders who have access to the data, sales reports, business plans, etc. Just so ludicrous.
There is no logical fallacy in saying that.
Re: Final Fantasy 16 Is Exclusive to PS5 for Six Months, Sony Confirms
@EaglyTheKawaiiShika Lol, yes, I can say what I said because I said it. You're trying to demean me by likening my response to something Jim Ryan would say as opposed to actually countering the points I made by standing up for your own opinions with rationale reasoning. Lame tactics.
Yes, PC gamers are a different breed and may be less likely to migrate to PS than from a rival console competitor. But you have to understand, that perceived exclusivity, whether it's timed or not, is about brand recognition. PS wants to be the place associated with FF. They want to be the place that always gets it first. That builds the PS brand and retains loyalty.
Maybe that doesn't work on you. But it does on a lot of people. I, for one, grew up on FF. I played Nintendo because of FF. And I now play PS because of FF. I like the convenience of a console, but I don't care what console I play so long as they have FF as soon as possible. This is what Sony is banking on. That is their strategy, and it is one they've stuck to the majority of time since the launch of the original PS and FF7.
They do it for a reason because it clearly benefits them. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that. But, yeah, gone on about how it would benefit PS more to assume risk heavily in an unknown project than to moderately invest in timed-exclusivity with a franchise they have a long standing history with, contributes toward their brand recognition and gamer retention, and is wildly successful.
In any case, PS already does invest in new IP regularly. It turns out they do both! Wild idea.
Re: Final Fantasy 16 Is Exclusive to PS5 for Six Months, Sony Confirms
@EaglyTheKawaiiShika Yeah, Sony just shelled out millions for timed exclusivity without it benefiting them. You're totally right. The industry leader in video games doesn't know what they're doing or have statistics to back up their strategy. You should be running Sony with what I'm sure is great business acumen.
Your hot take is an absolute joke.
Anyone with half a brain knows the high level of anticipation and media engagement generated for the PS5 when the slate of games were first being announced near launch. FF16 headlined many of those presentations. It has been hotly anticipated and has only picked up steam since. People are basically salivating for this game. To think that that doesn't affect sales of the PS5 is beyond mind boggling.
People who are not delusional know that a 6-month exclusivity does not mean that the game is going to Xbox in 6 months. It's likely going to PC after 6 months. Same as FF7R. When it goes to Xbox is anyones guess. PS is the place to play FF16, and fans of the series are not going to buy Xbox to play it later down the road. Console gamers who want to play FF16 are buying a PS. End of story.
Re: Control 2 Is Official as Remedy Enters Publishing Agreement
Honestly, my only major complaint for the first game was how lacking the game was in varying enemy types. Aside from that it was an absolute masterpiece. So pumped about a sequel.
Re: Final Fantasy 16 Is Exclusive to PS5 for Six Months, Sony Confirms
@Shad361 Buying exclusivity is not wasting money. It is cheaper to buy a timed exclusive than it is to develop an entire game. Having that exclusivity to games, even if they're timed, can massively affect console choice among gamers. This contributes to keeping PS competitive and profitable and the current leader in the market. People in this very comment section have stated they specifically bought a PS5 because Playstation had timed exclusivity to this game. That is not wasted money.
Re: Final Fantasy 16 Is Exclusive to PS5 for Six Months, Sony Confirms
@Eagly Bragging rights? No. That is stupid and juvenile. Convenience to play it early? Yes. Only tools brag. I have no interest in bragging. Most FF fans want to play it as soon as possible. That's all. Period. Bringing up bragging rights is seriously baffling. The vast, vast majority of Final Fantasy games throughout the series history have been console exclusives or timed exclusives to either Nintendo or PS. Final Fantasy games on Xbox at release have been the acceptation, not the rule. This is because Sony PS has always had a closer relationship with SquareEnix compared to Microsoft. This is a result of business relationships, a long-formed history over the years, and business strategy. It's not to give a middle finger to Xbox fans. It is to add to the allure of the PS platform so that the platform remains competitive with Xbox and attractive to gamers. You say that Sony could have made another game to bolster the console. Somehow I doubt you know the best strategy for Sony to bolster it's console. Buying exclusivity is cheaper than developing an entire game. And having exclusivity bolsters fans excitement for the system and commit to the system. Yes, of course, it's a contest between consoles. It's called business, and markets do not have infinite growth, so there is competition. There's nothing petty about it.
Re: Final Fantasy 16 Is Exclusive to PS5 for Six Months, Sony Confirms
@Eagly You get to play the game 6 months sooner than you would if you were on any other system. So, yes, you do get something out of it if you intend to play it within the first 6 months of release. And if you want to play it at a cheaper price, used PS copies will be floating around sooner than they will be elsewhere.
Re: PS Plus Lost Two Million Members in the Last Three Months
@Tharsman Not everyone thinks the same. A one-month subscription to PS+ Extra is $15, enough time to finish the game. That's less than the cost of God Of War standalone by your numbers. When Ragnarok is advertised as a brand new game, a percentage of people who never played the first will sign up for the service to catch up on the series because they also get access to a bunch of other games they might want to try out. People who played the first game years ago may be interested in signing up if they sold their copy and want to play it, again, before the second comes out. There could very well be an uptick in subscriptions when looking at the broad player base and their different motivations. How big that uptick is is anyone's guess, but it's not an unreasonable assumption that the release of such a massive title will generate interest in the first game. And PS+ Extra is the most affordable option to try it out.
Re: PS Plus Lost Two Million Members in the Last Three Months
@Tharsman The upcoming release of God Of War Ragnarok will generate interest in playing the first game in anticipation. The first game is on PS+. Thus the new game will drive players to subscribe to PS+ to play the first game, possibly increasing subscriptions.
Re: PS Plus Lost Two Million Members in the Last Three Months
It's absolutely zero surprise that there's been a steady backslide in membership from the height of the pandemic when people were staying home and playing more.
Re: Rumour: PS Plus Essential PS5, PS4 Games for November 2022 Leaked Early
Pumped about Nioh 2. Worth the cost of admission alone.
Re: Cyberpunk 2077 Popularity Still Soaring a Month After Edgerunners Anime and Update
@jrt87 After updating the game, was CDPR nominated for a "tradesman of the year" award equivalent?
Hardly. People are just rediscovering it because of a well-time anime used to market the game now that the game is in solid shape.
You can still praise the game for what it is and simultaneously recognize the poor state it was in when released.
These two things are not mutually exclusive, and your average player isn't going to be a negative, axe-grinding Nancy about the game's release for infinite.
Re: Cyberpunk 2077 Just Smashed The Witcher 3's All-Time Concurrent Player Record
I've put in about 40 hours in the last couple weeks. It started feeling very, very immersive. I was very impressed and I enjoyed the story. There is, however, plenty to critique about the game that has been well documented, but I find that with most open world games. As time has passed, I have felt less immersed because when navigating the open world I don't seem to stumble upon side missions/stories like I would in The Witcher 3. In that game, you'd randomly talk to someone and it would kick off a whole adventure. In Cyberpunk, everyone just calls you and suddenly you have a new mission. Missions, however, don't seem to organically spring up out of wandering. I don't know, maybe I'm driving too much and missing them if they're there. That said, the side missions that you get calls for are enjoyable for what they are, and in general I enjoy the game well enough. Given the controversy of the game's release, I'm glad that it has a new lease on life, and I hope CD Projekt Red has learned a lesson.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
@Westernwolf4
“Tribalism, as you describe it, has zero to do with anything.”
I don’t know, man. This was a pretty broad all-encompassing statement. Pardon me for misconstruing your hyperbole.
Even still, you say you understand tribalism. And yet you say tribalism has nothing to do with your opinion.
And then you say: "If I have a slight preference for Ellie, it is probably because I want to see characters from TLOU in a sequel to TLOU."
This is a tribal statement. Showing preference for a group, .I.e the previous game’s characters, due to a sense of familiarity.
So on one hand you say tribalism isn’t part of your opinion, and on the other hand you’re showing signs of tribalism while saying an opinion.
And you seem to want to undermine the thematics of tribalism by cutting the playtime as Abby.
There is an incongruity between your statements is all I’m saying. I’m not saying you’re completely unfamiliar with the idea of tribalism. But it does seem like you’re missing how the game is intentionally using the idea of tribalism to manipulate our feeling about Abby and Ellie on some level.
If you shortchange Abby’s playtime the tribal experiment the game is executing on the player would be ruined.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
@Westernwolf4 it’s funny that you think that tribalism has nothing to do with this game. Which suggests you don’t understand this game as well as you think you do. Seraphites. Fireflies. WLF. Rattlers. Factions. In other words tribes. Tribalism has EVERYTHING to do with this game. It’s embedded in the game’s DNA. And how we relate to Ellie and Abby directly is influenced by our tribal relations to these characters. We start out as a tribe as players with Ellie and Joel in the first game. We are a tribe of three. Ellie. Joel. The player. We highly relate to them based on our familiarity. Familiarity is what gels a tribe, in part. Abby is unfamiliar to use in the second game and is distinctly in conflict with our tribe, Joel and Ellie. Tribalism blocks our ability to extend empathetic understanding to those we find ourselves in opposition with. This game wants to challenge are tribal nature by placing someone outside of our tribe on equal footing with those inside our tribe. To extend the same empathy. That you want Abby’s gameplay time to be shortened while showing preference to Ellie suggests that tribalism does indeed affect how you’re approaching this game in contrast with how the game is actively requesting that you give up your tribal affiliation by giving Abby her due as a full co-lead alongside Ellie.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
"If I have a slight preference for Ellie, it is probably because I want to see characters from TLOU in a sequel to TLOU."
This is the inherent tribalism the game is exposing. Learning to empathize equally with people even when you have a greater attachment originally with one person.
You've expressing exposed the point. Some people have much greater reactions to Abby's equal role. Yours is not as great. But it's still there. That is what the game is exposing.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
@liljazzy2 I would then recommend doing some reading up on converging plot lines as a narrative device. Your opinion that TLOU2 has a convoluted narrative appears to, in part, lie in your unfamiliarity with this writing technique.
Just because something seems convoluted doesn't mean that it does not fulfill an artistic intent.
A painter can paint an ugly painting with the intent of illustrating a truth. That truth justifies painting something that is ugly. If you just look at the painting and say, "I don't like this painting because it's ugly," that just shows you don't understand the intent of the work.
When you call a converging plot line convoluted as a negative, it suggests you don't understand the artistic intent of using a converging plot line as a device.
Something being convoluted is not inherently a negative if there is a reason for it. And there is very much a reason why TLOU2 is structured the way it is.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
@Westernwolf4 C'mon now. We are discussing Abby's role in the narrative and how that adds length to the narrative. We are not talking about running around and collecting items that have little to no bearing on the central plot dynamics.
There are 144 collectibles in the first game and nearly double that in the second while hidden in much larger environments. If you want to complain about the game being too long that's not on Abby's involvement.
You can make just about any game unbearably long by collecting every last thing. But that's not what we're truthfully talking about.
My actual argument is that our playtime as Abby is just as vital as our playtime with Ellie.
If you want to argue shortening Abby's story, then you have to shorten Ellie's. (But even if you do this I think this would undermine the goal of wearing out the player on an emotional level). Because the game's intent is to put them on equal footing.
If you want to belabor calling it a long game (which I still contend that it's not in the grand scheme of gaming) and if you want to shorten it overall, you can't just remove parts of Abby's story. You'd have to shorten the entire game to maintain the artistic intent of the game.
Jumping immediately to trimming Abby's role without acknowledging that you would need to trim Ellie's, as well, to maintain the balance the game is intent on striking, betrays a misunderstanding of the intent behind the narrative's form.
I admit to exaggerating the pittance statement. My point was that you don't seem to want Abby's role to be as large as Ellie's, as evidenced by your preference to jump immediately to only reducing Abby's role.
This betrays hints of tribalism, subconsciously or otherwise, in favor of Ellie. This game is daring you not to be tribal.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
But we're not talking about 100%ing a game. Cyberpunk takes about 25 hours to complete the main story, but you can spend upwards of a 100 hours to doing everything. And, yet people actually complain that Cyberpunk's main quest is too short.
The extra hours are simply gameplay minutia that you're free to play or not. Heck, you can draw out Uncharted 4 to like 30+ hours searching out every nook and cranny for collectibles. But that's still a short to medium length main game. Obsessively searching out collectibles is separate from the main narrative. TLOUS 2 is still a medium length game for the intent of this discussion.
In regards to hammering the themes in. Abby had to go on a journey of her own to put her on the same narrative and sympathetic level as Ellie and Joel. So, again, minimizing her narrative would diminish her footing with Ellie and Joel as an equally sympathetic and important character, and the thematic goals would not be met.
It's like you argue you know the thematics of the game without allowing the thematics of the game to actually play out. This game is intended to be as much Abby's game as it is Ellie's game. Not surprisingly you play as each for about the same exact time.
The game wants you to give equal credence to both these characters. Diminishing Abby undermines this goal.
You say: "They could have done half of the Abby section and still made their point."
No, they absolutely could not have. That would betray the intent of the game.