Rally-Vincent---

No way. The trophies are an image of a large part of my gaming history since trophies were introduced. Every console game I played since trophies became a thing is in my list, I like it that way. Why would I hide from people who look at my list which games I disliked (or are in my backlog)?

I can second the D-pad. In addition, if aiming for Ballons, I found it helpful to tip it only lightly in one direction instead of steering as one is used to. Steering as usual makes the chocobo change direction significantly, I missed more balloons due to that oversteering. Only when avoiding birds are sharp directional changes beneficial.

Subscriptions services are a rental. I want to own the games I play so I can play them whenever I want. Why anyone would prefer to play a game on a mini screen of their phone instead of a flatscreen TV screen, I don't know. I play console games because they are plug-and-play. But most of all: I buy games bevcause those are the games I want to play.

The site is the most visually pleasing to use IMO, and it is a great source to discover games from profiles with similar interests you never hear about on large video game sites. The site might be dedicated to trophies, but you can use it as a database and get news. There is enough incentive apart from trophies to take part in the forums, even if the atmosphere can get a bit hostile once in a while.

I think you are looking at the subject with a narrow mind. There are more than two points of view on the matter of easy-plats. It is perfectly valid no to care about impact on "the trophy system" in general. Other priorities in the field of gaming are not laziness.

You can't argue from "my opinion is true and yours is false', because true and false relates to facts. Only facts can be true or false, opinions are always subjective. So if your basis is a false one, it is no wonder you don't come over like you intend. Stating that what happens with Rat trophies is "truely wrong" as a fact in false in itself. It is not a fact. You can have an opinion on that, like anybody else can. Labeling someone who doesn't give that sort of thing any importance does not make them 'lazy'. Your opinion does not make facts (no opinion does). So yes, you did group ülayers-for-the-playing-sake in that group and blamed them.

Have I misterpreted than that you put people who just play their games and don't give a thing about a perceived 'value' on the trophy system into the 'live-and-let-live-group, then? Because players that don't care are the majority of people who post live-and-let-live, and you just emptied a bucket of blame over everyone.

If we're being 'honest' here, it is not people who playgames for their enjoyment who are 'responsible' - it is people who have set their priorities on trophies rather than on playing games. It is the latter who care so much for ranks and rarities.

You don't need to be a cook to judge if a topic soup is salty.

That that sort of argument always goes vice versa. The next guy doesn't care what you think cheap Platinums will do to gaming, hence why I said that those kind of discussions are fruitless. People aren't interested in an argument, they are only shouting their set-in-stone agenda at each other. So, pray tell: In relation to the post I responded to (the impact can they have on the future development of gaming, not trophy hunting), what is the problem if nobody except a tiny majority ever even heard of that company?

Thing is: There is a huge difference between people whose focus is playing a video game and people whose focus is to collect trophies. All the complaining about trophy lists, trophy rarity and easy stacks has nothing to do with playing games for the sake of playing games, it is about the collection aspect. I like to collect my trophies as probably most of us do, but that is and always will be an addendum. Those are the two 'sides', not elitist vs. trophy whores. That is why these dicussions will stay fruitless. One side gets the trophies that are attached to games they choose because that are the games they want to play. The other side chooses the games because of what trophies are attached to it, be it a 'quickplat' or 'OMG only UR'. Of course, there are players who fall somewhere inbetween, but let's say for the sake of the argument they fall on either side of the argument (so either are live and live or emphasize the trophy aspects over the other). How can there be a middle ground if people emphasize aspects the other side does not care about? The 'bigger picture' has absolutely no impact on the way how I play my games, and I think most people here overestimate the importance of easy trophies. The 'bigger picture' is that the majority of people who buy games are casual players who often don't even finish games - that has been back then when there were no trophies or achievements just as it is today. 26% of players finished the epilogue of RDR 2, which should have a representative sample size of customers. Alien: Isolation has 17,6% fo finishing the game on any difficulty. Nier: Automata is at 53% for the first playthrough, so half the people who have a PSN account didn't even play through the story once. Sure, Marvel's Sipderman has a high rate of players who have finished it, but in general, that seems to be an exception to the rule. The impact on game developing in general is but neglectable. Will there be mimics who seek to get a foot in with cheap ports? Maybe, but they will still make very small segment of the market. There are far more important changes that threaten traditional gameplay, like attempts to abolish retail games or the colported 'death of the single player'. That are thiong that are going to change how - and if - I keep playing console games.

Yes, I got the same thing. Killed an innocent in the item world, both trophies popped. I'm in chapter four, though.

This is what I mean when I said that you want to bias the trophy system. As it is now, the trophy system has one purpose - the trophies are not designed to show something - difficulty, game time etc - in relation to other games. All a platinum trophy shows is that you did everything the developer thought was noteworthy in a specific game. Trophies show off progress in a specific game. Difficulty, rarity and leaderboards are interests that lie outside of the trophy system, on supplementary pages like PSNP or PSNTL. And I am sorry, I have not heard a solid reason why the game-progress-system should be replaced by a biased system that relies on subjective opinions like 'too easy', 'UR or death' or 'nobody should develop or play a game like that'. So yes, I think exactly that every platinum should be worth the same, as it indicates the same thing: The game is finished. That is a measurable fact rather than indistinct opinions, with (by the way) many of which I strongly disagree. The sugeestion to bias the system will be a potpourri of people who think they are entitled to tell other people what games are 'worth' something. As a sidenote, taken just from this thread: People attack shovelware as 'money for trophies', and then there was a suggestion for a leaderboard-type that only counts 100% games. That's basically the same thing: spend money for trophies by buying DLC. The term 'elitism' that others used are not that unjustified as people who feel attacked by it say.