JCC Gaming Förceboat Parté - JC G4m3z thr34d (Gaming General Discussion)

I love Tim Sweeney's "Yeah, it's basically going to be primarily about corporations shilling their brands".

 

Oh, so it's the new Playstation Home.

 

This is exciting to hear. Oxenfree is an underrated gem. I believe it’s still on Xbox Game Pass as well.

 

"Thus, having established the metaverse, I concluded the future is now and it does not require a shopping cart."

Honestly though, Ready Player One and Epic Games are made for each other, in that they are both utterly vacuous wastes of time defended by the most superficial of people.

 

I’m all for a metaverse as long as I get a cool outfit, magic and a persona.....

oh wait that’s not what this is about.

 

I’d prefer a deep dive system like SAO. Without the permadeath.

Although....

 

If I was in SAO I’d appreciate the solace of knowing everyone around me could die for real and that I could, in turn, kill myself.

 

Not that I'm accusing Ernest Cline of being a low rent hack and his fans of having the depth of a puddle, but...

the first Metaverse, in Snow Crash, had small demons collect your dead avatar if you got killed in it. I fail to see how allowing people to dress like life-sized anime body pillows has any advantage over this.

 

Some cool news for you photo enthusiasts.

 

For anyone wondering if Yakuza: Like A Dragon is a good place to start, the answer has to be no.

Play Yakuza 0-6 first. Yes, work your way through seven games. It will take you some time but, eventually, you'll understand why.

 

I just finished up Trails of Cold Steel 1, enjoyable enough that I’ll be playing the second one.

That ending though.

Spoiler

following up the obligatory JRPG giant monster in the dark world final boss with “Surprise!: The game is actually about mechs” is so audacious in it’s ridiculousness that I can’t help but admire it.

 

I need to get back to Trails of Cold Steel II.

 

Speaking of, I have to say, NIS America’s odious marketing tactic of advertising how it’s totally fine to start with III and actually the first two games were bad anyway is... well, odious.

Edit: Anyway, I picked up Captain Tsubasa for Switch since it was on sale and I dunno if there’s just some fundamental rhythm or something to the arcade football I don’t fully grasp yet, but Christ do I find it hard. It took me three tries to get past the first match, and that was only because I re-reviewed the tutorials for tackling scenarios and then adopted a really aggressive shots on goal strategy to basically just force the opposing keeper to run out of stamina. In conclusion: a 1-0 victory is still a victory.

 

Oh, that is total bull****. You can't start with III.

 

I really want to know if Falcom is aware that’s their marketing strategy. It’s clearly because NIS took over localization with the third entry and has to try and win over Switch owners who can’t play the first two, but it’s easily the worst possible way to frame it.

 

Eh, that's typical - the same thing was said about RDR and Saint's Row. "Don't worry that you can't play the previous game, it totally doesn't matter! "

 

This is more like if, when they were trying to convince people to jump on at Mass Effect 3, they had also said the reason you could do this is because ME1 and 2 sucked, didn’t matter, and were better off skipped anyway.

 

I played RDR2 without having played the first game and it was fine. I would play the first but the only way to do it on PC is by fiddling around with emulators and hoping nothing breaks.

 

I can think of something better. I've played all the way through Infamous: First Light without having played Infamous or Infamous: Second Son. I have both of the earlier games in my library (as PSN freebies) but haven't gotten around to playing them yet.

 

PlayStation doing a 180 for the better.

 

I played Saint's Row 3 and enjoyed it just fine as well, despite the first one not being available on PC. (I didn't enjoy Saint's Row 2, but that was because it was a **** port). I've only played the latter Far Crys, which - considering they are only loosely linked anyways - doesn't particularly matter.
My complaint is when the official statement about the first game not being available on PC is "Oh, it doesn't matter" when the reason why you can't play is because it was another ****ing exclusive.
Rockstar is especially egregious, because they not only still do their 'timed exclusives' but they playing this game where they coyly say 'we have no plans to release on PC at this time' every ****ing new game that gets released on console when they clearly had to have been working on the PC port at that time - which is usually a **** port anyways, but as CDPR discovered, you only get bad publicity over **** ports when you screw up the console version.

 

GTA V on PC was pretty good I thought.

I don't really understand though why they'd release RDR2 on PC and not the first one.
I know that RDR2 is set before the events of the first game, but I can't find out what happens next if the other game is only on PlayStation.
Good money could be made from a PC release, especially if it was remastered to look more like RDR2

 

Yeah given RDR2 is a prequel, I had the same experience. It's a beautiful game too.

 

Because Rockstar considers the PC market to not be a priority.

 

Well that's hardly surprising, I don't think most studios who make console games consider PC a priority.

But then why even release RDR2 or GTA V? There was quite a gap between the console release of GTA V and the PC version, with the latter even having stuff in it that wasn't in the console versions.
Seems like a lot of work for a platform Rockstar don't care about

If you're going to release the second game in a series on PC like RDR2, at least release the first one