Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Bloodborne

I haven't got many games yet but Bloodborne alone has kept me entertained. I've played all the Souls series but Bloodborne has really impressed me and suits my plays style so much better. Looking forward to more from From Software if Bloodborne is the standard that they release on this Gen.

Until Dawn was good, a bit short, but entertaining and pretty good to look at with a pretty high replay potential.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Witcher 3 came out and basically plays like Geralt is running through pudding...

I would enjoy that, I love pudding

Since this thread popped up I've been thinking about it, and yes, thus far gen 4/5 (or 7/8 for me) has been somewhat disappointing, however when the ps1/2/3 initially dropped, it was very sparse with decent titles, so I'm willing to wait.

 Pilau Rice wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

Bloodborne

I haven't got many games yet but Bloodborne alone has kept me entertained. I've played all the Souls series but Bloodborne has really impressed me and suits my plays style so much better. Looking forward to more from From Software if Bloodborne is the standard that they release on this Gen.

Until Dawn was good, a bit short, but entertaining and pretty good to look at with a pretty high replay potential.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Witcher 3 came out and basically plays like Geralt is running through pudding...

I would enjoy that, I love pudding

It kind of sucks because I really wanted to play Witcher 3, but with how slow he moves it's just frustrating. So I'm contemplating picking it upon my PS4

 Sigvatr wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Yeah, my PS4 disagrees. Between games like Shovel Knight, Bloodborne, Witcher 3, Arkham Knight, Evolve, and once I get Fallout 4, there's been plenty of games that are a fething blast to play.

With the exception of Bloodborne, neither of those games represent the current gen.

In general, I agree. We also bought a PS4 just for Bloodborne and don't own any other game. There just isn't any interesting console exclusive for any console unless you like Halo. It's the natural fate of consoles, though, as the difference between a console's price and the price of a real PC gets smaller and the only advantage a console has is getting even thinner. Keeping in mind that this isn't a real argument anyway, unless you only play video games on your PC.

I'm not sure I follow. What makes them not current gen? Are they not the current generation of consoles?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Pilau Rice wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

Bloodborne

I haven't got many games yet but Bloodborne alone has kept me entertained. I've played all the Souls series but Bloodborne has really impressed me and suits my plays style so much better. Looking forward to more from From Software if Bloodborne is the standard that they release on this Gen.

Until Dawn was good, a bit short, but entertaining and pretty good to look at with a pretty high replay potential.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Witcher 3 came out and basically plays like Geralt is running through pudding...

I would enjoy that, I love pudding

It kind of sucks because I really wanted to play Witcher 3, but with how slow he moves it's just frustrating. So I'm contemplating picking it upon my PS4

Are you running? I've been playing it and rarely had this problem. Plus, I either fast travel or just run around on my horse 24/7.

I was definitely running, I had to play the game on my PC with the lowest settings to prevent it from stuttering. The effect of that was Geralt running through pudding.

I'd play blooborne, but the company that makes it is afraid of money and made the skull-fethed stupid decision to sell it exclusively on the playstation, therefor I can't. That's something I certainly find disappointing, but that's not new to any generation. Companies afraid of making money have always done crap like this.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I was definitely running, I had to play the game on my PC with the lowest settings to prevent it from stuttering. The effect of that was Geralt running through pudding.

That's hardly a problem with the game. Your computer just isn't up to snuff so of course there's gameplay issues.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I was definitely running, I had to play the game on my PC with the lowest settings to prevent it from stuttering. The effect of that was Geralt running through pudding.

That's hardly a problem with the game. Your computer just isn't up to snuff so of course there's gameplay issues.

I had to go back and look at my original post. I never said it was Witcher 3's problem...

In fact I said later a few posts later (bolded the relevant part):

 Alfndrate wrote:

It kind of sucks because I really wanted to play Witcher 3, but with how slow he moves it's just frustrating. So I'm contemplating picking it upon my PS4

 Melissia wrote:
I'd play blooborne, but the company that makes it is afraid of money and made the skull-fethed stupid decision to sell it exclusively on the playstation, therefor I can't. That's something I certainly find disappointing, but that's not new to any generation. Companies afraid of making money have always done crap like this.

I'm guessing they got paid a lot by Sony to make it an exclusive.

It's kinda the same with the start of any new gen. A bunch of substance-thin pretty show-off games come out (The Order 1866...) before the real good stuff starts to come out. It just... Feels like that period has been dragging on waaay longer than any other gen previously.

Maybe it's got more to do with the way games have been going for a while. AAA titles just seem to aim for the mass-market middle, and very few have been unique stand-outs.

But we did get Blood Borne so, all is well in the end.

I am still on PS3 and hardly ever play any video games -- the second factor being the cause of the first, TBH.

When I saw the Fallout 4 TV adverts, I was astonished by how gakky the animation looked. IDK if it was in game stuff or video, but the walk cycle on the dog was bollocks.

As said above, the first gen of any new gen is relatively shonky, because developers have rushed the games out in time for the launch deadline.

Later games tend to improve as developers learn the tricks to get the best out of the hardware. That's the advantage of a fixed platform.

All the above being said, graphics is not as important as game-play, and it's much harder to innovate in game-play. The last real breakthrough game in that respect was Journey, which is at least three years old now.

Funny, I tried playing Bloodborne, couldn't really get into. The lack of Hunter's Dream warp points making me replaying the same 30-45 min section over and over dozens was just too repetitive and annoying for me to enjoy it.

 sing your life wrote:
Funny, I tried playing Bloodborne, couldn't really get into. The lack of Hunter's Dream warp points making me replaying the same 30-45 min section over and over dozens was just too repetitive and annoying for me to enjoy it.

There are generally one or two shortcuts in each of the zones that open up so you don't have run through the whole zone. The shortcuts are not always obvious in some of the zones. I've played through the game a few times, and I still can't figure out the Old Yharnham shortcut.

I was excited about the PS 4 because of a couple of games but few of them have yet to come out. Once I can get my hand on theese the console will be worth buying for me.

PS4:
*Bloodborne
*Dark Souls 3
*Mirrors edge 2
*Persona 5
*Kingdom hearts 3

Guess it would be fun to pick up a WII U for the Bayonetta games, super smash, Zombie U and new Zelda games but so far I havn't felt the fascination with it that I did for the wii. So far what has impressed me in the next gen are the incredibly smart and intresting indie games. Such as Dakest dungeon and undertale. Indie has easily sucked up more of my time then AAA games lately.

We took the plunge and got a Wii U earlier this year, mainly for the Virtual Console feature as my dad is a hard core 'old school' gamer. (loves the NES/SNES Zelda games + Breath of Fire I & II, still waiting for any Dragon Quest games to come & holding out hope for Ogre Battle 64.)

We got Smash 4 for free in a bundle offer, and honestly, I can't stop playing Hyrule Warriors!
My dad is thinking about getting the Twilight Princess HD release in March.


My main poison though is the DS/3DS...

Currently playing a combination of Fantasy Life + Smash 4 (I absolutely love Smash Run!)
Also put some serious hours into Fire Emblem Awakening, as well as the Ocarina of Time re-boot. I also picked up the special edition Link Between Worlds 3DS system w/pre-downloaded game.

Next year is looking heinously awful as well! (in a good way though )
Jan brings Final Fantasy Explorers
Feb has Fire Emblem Fates - I managed to luck into a special edition copy, though I'll have to wait until Easter to actually play it...
March 25th is Hyrule Warriors Legends, which will likely consume me body and soul!
Fall 2016 will see Dragon Quest 7 finally make it's way over here as well. (with DQ8 also confirmed for a NA release)



For Xmas this year, I'm getting the Hyrule Edition *NEW* 3DS, partly for the amiibo function, and mostly because I want the extra processing power for HW:Legends.

Lol at fallout 4 call of duty edition. Same gakky engine and graphics from like 10 years ago.

Wild hunt is good atleast .

kb305 wrote:
Lol at fallout 4 call of duty edition. Same gakky engine and graphics from like 10 years ago. .

Assuming this isn't trolling how is Fallout 4 anything like COD other than they both have guns, first person perspective and iron sights? Fallout 4 has a different setting, much more health, no fast regenerating health, NPC interaction, RPG elements, etc also you're being dishonest if you

think Oblivion is even close to Fallout 4 in graphics.

 Cheesecat wrote:

kb305 wrote:
Lol at fallout 4 call of duty edition. Same gakky engine and graphics from like 10 years ago. .

Assuming this isn't trolling how is Fallout 4 anything like COD other than they both have guns, first person perspective and iron sights? Fallout 4 has a different setting, much more health, NPC interaction, RPG elements, etc also you're being dishonest if you think Oblivion is even close to

Fallout 4 in graphics.

Spoiler:

Because fallout 4 doubles down on the shooting and dumbs down all the RPG elements.
Angry Joe sums it up nicely
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aorKjw71ckQ
Ignore the 8/10 he gives it (it seems like he mostly just gives that score to be nice) and listen to what he actually says about the game.

Im sorry you boarded the hype train and bought a POS with a 10 year old engine. Bethesda is laughing all the way to the bank.

That's an awful argument just because Fallout 4 has first person shooter elements doesn't mean it's like COD, while Fallout 4 doesn't have amazing graphics (it looks decent) it certainly doesn't look like it's 10 years old either.

Ok.
Go shoot those raiders brah

Angry Joe is like Yahtzee. He rages because it's what people expect (and the only reason he gets any views), then you get what he really thinks as an afterthought with little explanation. Looking to him for legitimate critique is completely missing the point of his channel.

 LordofHats wrote:
Angry Joe is like Yahtzee. He rages because it's what people expect (and the only reason he gets any views), then you get what he really thinks as an afterthought with little explanation. Looking to him for legitimate critique is completely missing the point of his channel.

His reviews seem fine to me. He is easy to please (or paid off) so rarely gives any very low scores.

There is plenty of legitimate critique in what he says about fallout 4.

The WiiU games are a lot prettier than the Wii's, but none of them managed to really grab me until Xenoblade Chronicles X came out the other week. I'm sure at this point I've played it more than all the other WiiU games combined. I love the heck out of it.

Hopefully the console will get at least one more game I really like before they bring out the WiiU One or whatever. I'm not 100% sure it will.

 LordofHats wrote:
Angry Joe is like Yahtzee. He rages because it's what people expect (and the only reason he gets any views), then you get what he really thinks as an afterthought with little explanation. Looking to him for legitimate critique is completely missing the point of his channel.

Pretty much. He's entertainment. He knows it, and he's good at it. But he's not really good at in depth reviews.

There was a big discussion about Angry Joe in regards to Star Wars Battlefront. I've decided the man is an idiot, as is anyone who follows him blindly. This discussion wasn't on Dakka, but the premise was that people viewed only his review, and ignored all other reviewers. He hated Battlefront and most other reviewers gave it a decent score (not perfect, just decent). So people avoided the game just on the grounds "Angry Joe didn't like it". As such, my first experience with him made me view him as some form of idiot, and all of his followers as sheep. First impressions go a long way...

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The WiiU games are a lot prettier than the Wii's, but none of them managed to really grab me until Xenoblade Chronicles X.

Don't forget Super Smash Bros. WiiU that was great as well.

Well, now that Ark is on consoles, I'm looking forward to that once I get it, especially with split screen bring on the devs' list of things to do.

That, Fallout 4, Far Cry Primal, and GTA V have been the only games I've been looking forward to for console. So basically, if my computer can't run it smoothly, I'll hope it's on console.

You shouldn't use any review by anyone as a means of deciding whether you will like a game or not /unless/ you know that person...in person. Most "official" reviews on review sites nowadays are paid or "inofficially sponsored" and other "reviews" are just what a review is: a personal opinion. There's plenty of opportunities nowadays to test a game and see whether you will like it nor not, some legal, some illegal, but your opinion and that of people who know your taste in gaming and the only opinions that matter.

Consider all reviews online or in magazines as entertainment. Not more, not less.

Metacritic is another good thing to go by, but only with the user score. Swarm intelligence and such. Mostly. Sometimes, big problems cause an uproar that then causes negative reviews (e.g. DLC policy), but then again - why shouldn't this influence ratings? It's the best thing to go by after the aforementioned.

 LordofHats wrote:
Angry Joe is like Yahtzee. He rages because it's what people expect (and the only reason he gets any views), then you get what he really thinks as an afterthought with little explanation. Looking to him for legitimate critique is completely missing the point of his channel.

Umm... what? Do you even watch his videos? He goes on at length about game issues and problems. He usually keeps his "raging" to the start of a video with the little skits he and Other Joe put together.

He's one of the most thorough game reviewers around.