PSN Profile
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

667 Excellent


About JohnCenaSong-

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

4,874 profile views
  1. I'm not a trophy hunter myself by I do enjoy watching other people. It's something about watching someone aiming for something trackable you can see them progress in and seeing people play from a different angle. Sometime's I flick through the 'achievement hunting' tag on the site. I'll list a couple streams that I've watched a bit more regularly that trophy hunt that may be worth giving a look but I'd say browse the tag if you're interested in discovering more.
  2. 1000% this general idea. Nothing turns me off more than a game that doesn't respect my time. I know some people love to debate if they got value for money with a title using some kind of $/hr formula but for me it doesn't consider if half those hours were worthwhile and I'd rather play through 3 hours of the best game I've ever played than 100 hours of mediocre filler content with that 3 hours of amazing content snuggled in there... somewhere... Value for your time is something I consider a factor. Maybe it's just an age thing as younger gamers typically have less disposable income or only get games if their parents buy it for them yet have plenty of free time meanwhile us older folks can buy our own games and don't get enough time to sit down and play them . I just feel if a games wasting my time that's a worse offender than being 'too short', because then I've wasted time and money trying to get very little out of it. You don't get this time back y'know. Cutscenes should always be skippable once you've played the game. Sure, I may want to rewatch the story as I replay a harder mode or NG+ but that should be up to me. Cutscenes can make up a fairly large amount of time as can be seen in YouTube videos that compile them all together. I haven't played Wolfenstein 2 yet but I have played Outlast 2 and whilst that's obviously an easy game since its a walking/ocasionally running away sim you can slip up somewhere silly in a fairly lengthy run and having to sit through unskippable cutscenes again any time you slip up is a drag. Especially if it's a long opening scene. What makes Outlast 2 particularly annoying is, because of its genre, the cutscenes aren't the only thing that feel time wasting on subsequent playthroughs. Hiding while bad guys show up and waiting for them to go through their dialogue and go away before you can move on. Walking slowly through areas that add story first time around but act as basically just cutscenes you have to hold forward on the stick for . The amount of 'danger'/actual 'gameplay' in a run of Outlast 2 is not a lot for its runtime and it's why you see Outlast 1 get replayed to this day and not Outlast 2. It doesn't offer as much despite a longer runtime and so people rather spend their time playing the first game again. Another time waster, quick travel should be unlocked early or by default in open worlds. Visiting a new location for the first time you'll get that journey that may be important to the story/atmosphere but after a while the running back and forth becomes needless filler and you're treading the same ground and basically spending half the game just holding whatever buttons moves you forwards whether that be just forward on the stick or pressing an accelerator for a vehicle etc. In a movie or TV show a lot of the getting A to B is skipped, same happens in linear games when the levels over the cutscene transitions to the next level/environment of gameplay but no... open world games you have to walk that journey no one's actually interested in and maybe get some filler dialogue through a phone call or something that recaps everything that just happened in the last cutscenes . If I had to make a weird comparison it's like watching a documentary versus watching all the hours upon hours of raw footage that may have made up the documentary (often they don't stop recording in downtime just in case something happens). I don't need to see you driving a couple hours on the motorway to visit some professor, show me the 'were on our way to visit blah blah' clip you recorded in the car then suddenly wow you're knocking at the front door saying hello. Editing, it's like magic, we cut the useless stuff out. Games suddenly want to fill it up with that stuff . It doesn't add to the experience seeing, say, Aloy running towards every quest and side quest all across the same map. Oh, hi again robot dinosaur that spawns on this part of the map, I saw you the last 4 times I ran through this valley. Thrilling content. And that's a DECENT open world game, imagine being stuck in a Ubisoft game with no quick travel. Being gated off content through arbitrary XP or RNG factors is another one. Can't progress until you obtain a specific item or reach a specific level. And I'm not even talking RPGs which is what you'd assume. I've seen it in high score level based games, think games like maybe Trials etc. and it's not even a case of 'reach a certain score to move on', no no no, reaching certain levels or currency and geting XP or credits for finishing levels regardless of score so even if you've already mastered the level you're on (you could somehow even be #1 on the leaderboards) you still can't move on until you play it a few more times... What purpose does that serve? The RNG one is worse, where games essentially make the next level/world unlock by RNG because after finishing a level you may get rewards like cosmetics etc. and one of the rewards could be... a key to the next set of levels. I've seen that a couple times before. What if you just keep getting cosmetics over and over? I want to see the 2nd world of the game . And yknow what, speaking of XP gating though. RPGs that force grind. In some RPGs grinding helps but as speedrunners often show you can easily do things under-levelled if you've got the right strategy. Skill and strategy can overcome many fights and bosses following a natural level curve. But some RPGs don't seem to like that and create scenarios where you cannot plausibly win unless you are at least 'x' level. Usually through a system where level difference cripples the effectiveness of your stats and moves. Maybe every level lower than you are than your opponent reduces your damage output and resistances by 10x. Just merely getting that 1 level to make you equal makes the fight play as intended but... doing all story content and side quests up to that point puts you 5 levels under where you need to be I used to play (*cough* be addicted to) MMOs in my younger years, I've seen a LOT of my time wasted in my life and I wish I could get it back. Spending minutes tanking an entire enemy spawn to AoE and gain 0.01% XP towards a level up, doing that mindless repetitive action for a couple hours to get 1% closer to finally hitting that level cap I try not to let myself get hooked into time wasting content anymore. I see younger gamers getting suckered into these time wasting FOMO content of live services today just like I did with MMOs, it's a rite of passage lol. Gotta spend an hour each day doing the dailies, repetitive content you've done every day that gives you useless junk you've never used because... well... you need to do the daily right? Oh and don't forget to finish the weekly and grind out the pass. Did you enioy any of it? No. Did you spend like 40 hours in the week doing video game chores? Yes. I often hear younger friends of mine groan in PS parties, like actively groan and say "eurgh, I've still got the daily to do". No you don't! It's not a job! Just don't bother with it Games shouldn't feel like work. Challenging? Yeah, that's cool, overcoming difficulty and getting fulfilment from doing so can be pretty great but that's the only kind of 'work' that I feel has any valid payoff. All the other stuff that makes games feel like work? No thanks. Respect my time vidyagames and you might keep my attention, k.
  3. I don't know, maybe a 3 is a bit extreme, but the solo speedrun techniques are really easy if you know how and I guess the aim of a guide is to inform players how. With knowledge the player find things lot easier so I don't necessarily think difficulty should be based on a lack of knowledge if a guide offers it. Just like how puzzle games get low difficulty ratings because the guide offers the solutions. I don't think difficulty is made easier by the patches exclusively but by community knowledge, people have pooled together to make some really reliable safe strats and speedrun routes that dramatically lower the difficulty of getting through Nightmare if you just want to simply get through it. To do it the more 'legit' traditional way then sure, not too much has changed over time to knock it's difficulty so dramatically. The areas where you have to survive have cheeses and generally solo play with the AI being good turrets in more stationary survival encounters is easier than when you had to do it online only. Some of the level requirements themselves are also easier in offline, as well as ridden and special spawns. Even missions like T5 (gathering the Intel in the house) which I'd say at one point was the hardest section in Nightmare to beat legit is much easier with the right know-how. One method that was popular was to build up economy then splurge on barbed wire and pipe bombs. Using the bombs when you exited an upstairs window with an intel and using wire on the stairs because the AI clears ridden quick enough to make the top of the stairs totally safe. But this is an outdated 'easy' method as last I checked the easier method (and I don't know if there's an even easier one now) is to use the same typical speed deck used on all the other Acts/checkpoints with pain meds. Rush to the minigun with a toolkit and blast the ogre since you'll kill it before it gets close and you're totally safe up there on the minigun then just run around alternating between upstairs exit where the minigun was at or basement one-way door as exit points each time you find an Intel. Often AIs will die while you're moving around the house but you don't need them for anything. Speedrunning so OP for easy Nightmare runs despite some cards in speed decks being nerfed themselves throughout the game. You just gotta know where to run and at which point you should hunker down in a certain spot to tackle a hoard or recover some stamina and pretty much let the AI wipe most things out for you while supplying you with endless ammo too. Evangelo also makes this easier, firstly with the stamina and speed but also the breakout for if you get caught up while running. It should also be noted, while I'm not a fan of exploits and didn't use this myself, you can back out of the game before you fully game over and continue from the level you quit on rather than being sent back to the last Nightmare checkpoint (unless this got patched last patch). That would significantly make sections like Act 3 first half a lot easier as you wouldn't need to do them all in a row plus the corruption cards don't change so if you have an easy set that's neat (though I guess the drawback is you'd be stuck with a hard set too). Act 4 (being a boss fight) is a bit harder to get the speedrun for and I think they nerfed it in places like phase 2 so you can't hit over a certain amount each time the mouth opens (or at least for me I could only ever do exactly 1/3rd of its HP each time) but there's safe strats that make it a lot easier. For example phase 1 the ridden hoards don't trigger until you kill a tentacle so you can get all tentacles down to 1 shot (which is super easy with no ridden around) and then just hit them all with the last shot and bam, phase 2. I still believe you can 1 shot it in phase 3 though with the grenade deck but don't quote me on that. If you decide to play with a group instead of the easier solo route there's also the cards which I don't think got nerfed (correct me if I'm wrong, I've never used these cards myself, only see them in quickplay) that trigger on hoards that when stacked across the team are really strong. Melee decks are another one that can be crazy OP both solo and online. When I run a melee deck I can switch my brain off (even on Nightmare) and feel safe in the knowledge that aside from getting grabbed or pinned and not having a teammate/AI free me then it's basically impossible for me to die with all that damage reduction and temp health generation. Hags can still be a nuisance solo though if you're not paying attention. Mostly because the AI will always trigger it but I remember I had a hag on Nightmare on the Act 3 level with the raft (Cabins by the lake) and all my AI died and I just kept going back and forth between areas until the game informed me where the battery was so I didn't have to go inside any buildings or trigger alarms unnecessarily so I could just grab it and run to the exit. I just didn't care during that run, I was speedrunning just to grind an easy ZWAT for a character I didn't care about . Only area that I think would be tricky even with speedrunning and solo would be the hedge maze. The area before the maze you have to hold out and destroy a few things to open up the path to the maze is kind of easy (go up the stairs and hold off on either far end) but the AI does like to jump down for no reason to fight specials point blank and whilst you don't need all your AIs alive it's nice to have at least 1 following nearby in the hedge maze. The hedge maze itself has a few randomised paths, there's a handy picture that shows you the optimal path to check your route with the least possible backtracking but even then, backtracking is tricky in an enclosed space if you're speedrunning. It may even be best to slow down a bit here and let your (hopefully more than one) AIs cover you from common ridden as you navigate and focus any major threats in your way. I'm not too familiar with the latest patch with Nightmare because my focus has been moved onto No Hope, but it seems this patch has nerfed Nightmare even more than the last nerf meanwhile speedrunning hasn't really been nerfed so... I imagine it's even easier than when I last did a ZWAT and I'm wondering if it'll even make for an easy time in No Hope I'm no expert but I've played other '9/10' rated titles before and this game with the current easy strats and nerfs is nowhere near that level. I'm terrible with arbitrary difficulty ratings though so I don't know where it would stand. 3/10 I guess sounds too extreme, would... 6/10 sound fair? If they ever severely cripple speedrunning techniques and decks then, although there's others easy strats, I think the difficulty would raise a little. But speedrunning is very easy in this game and I'd wager is how a lot of people filled out some of their ZWAT collection. No shame in it, once I did Nightmare the traditional way a couple times I did some speedrunning just to complete some characters because I admit I couldn't be bothered and wanted to get through characters I didn't like the easy way.
  4. I see that attitude a fair bit online these days. I don't know why, but some just constantly offload all their negativity, constantly complaining about everything and everyone around them. The little things that shouldn't matter suddenly become the focal point of a small essay or v-log pumped out somewhere on the Internet. Venting is great, but being consumed by venting and only venting sounds like a real drag. Often those who complain the most are their own worst enemies as much of their issues are self inflicted by their own negative, blame-centric complaining attitudes - "It's not my fault, it's everyone around me". Then you have this attitude today of always needing to voice an opinion on everything. Like sure, it's good to have an opinion on important subjects but I don't see why it's so important to NEED to comment on everything. It's great we have the freedom to, I enjoy chatting about all things big and small and having random conversations and debates about things that don't really matter. But often people feel the need to comment on every small thing that people would find so background and not important enough to really have any strong feelings on. Sure, if pressured I may have an opinion on whether the shade of pink used for Kirby is just right (had a Kirby ad on screen while typing so I ran with it... ) but it's not something I'd really feel worth bringing up or commenting on, especially not for the sake of just having something else to complain about. But for some, the mere existence of a subject means they feel obligated to comment on it, can't let a thread pass on by without adding their hot take into the mix right? Often this leads to just seeing often grown men littering various online forums, social media posts, YouTube comments etc. with pointless ramblings about damn near everything. Like the random Kirby example, no one would have thought about it or cared but these kind of people will suddenly see the dead thread and come greet us with a paragraph waffling on about how the shade is actually too pale and how it somehow correlates to the downfall of society and the failure of our youth because by being too pale it somehow subtly encourages people not to be bold and decisive in their lives blah blah etc. you get the idea, you've probably seen it a dozen times before any excuse to complain. It sounds an exhausting way to live life.
  5. I think part of the point he was making is in those situations it's not a case of the trophy itself requiring 'x' number of people to boost. That it instead is a situation of the player missing the boat regarding the time period in which the trophy could have been obtained easily legitimately and now thanks to a dying playerbase the most convenient opportunity for them to get it is by then boosting it. Correct me if I'm wrong. Because no trophy or activity in a game is designed to be boosted, that'd be some pretty poor game design right there if the intention was to specifically boost. Using the term (which in many cases people still use it for games which DO have active player bases) is a bit unusual, since you're saying it requires something which it technically does not. It's kinda semantics but I vibe with it. You even say in your own sentence 'pretty much' rather than to outright declare it does require boosting. It's the more viable strategy to efficiently do it with low playerbases If you need to win a multiplayer match for a trophy and a multiplayer match needs, say, 4 people to start then that trophy requires 4 players somehow but it does not specifically require 4 boosters. To say it does implies boosting is the only way to get trophies rather than it just being the easier and more convenient way for someone to get a trophy. In most (if not all) cases boosting is not the only option and where I feel I agree with a term like that being irksome is to see people act like it is. It's fine if you want to boost a trophy to make it easier but this general vibe I get from some of the trophy community that assumes boosting as the only method to obtaining any multiplayer trophies feels weird. It's sometimes a pet peeve when checking out guides (which I don't do often because I don't use guides, I just read some for games I've beaten before for fun I like seeing how, if at all, I differed from any advice given within). Often the information in guides I've seen for multiplayer trophies is 'how to boost' or a simple generic line that basically means 'just boost this' rather than any tips that could help players seeking to obtain the trophy legitimately because the assumption is always that the reader will be boosting any multiplayer. I'd somewhat appreciate seeing more understanding among the die-hard trophy community that boosting is not the only way and that a decent number of people do enjoy the act of earning their trophies themselves as personal preference even if it's not the most efficient 'meta' strategy for trophy hunting. Not everyone's trying to be trophy leaderboard competitive after all and they're in no rush to efficiently crank out a dozen multiplayer platinums back to back. Some people love the journey more than the destination when it comes to trophy hunting. Whilst there's those using the phrases like 'requires 4 people to boost' there's often people out there earning those exact same trophies they're referring to within the same time period who aren't boosting them. Besides, even in the event of the game being so absolutely 100% dead you could argue it still doesn't technically require boosters, just the players. You could get a community together to play legit multiplayer and still try to attempt the trophy yourself in those matches for example and be successful in doing so. I've seen this in a couple small trophy communities recently who've done game nights for games like FCT and Among Us. They're all still aiming for their trophies while playing normally against each other, nobody is intentionally throwing for someone else to pop a trophy. It almost adds more tension to their matches as everyone's got trophies at stake meanwhile in your typical public multiplayer you're probably the only person in the match who even remotely cares about getting them . I'm sure I remember seeing this kind of thing more often back in the PS3 era too and I imagine it probably attaches much more of a personal memory and experience to each of those trophies rather than them all just blending in with all the other back and forth boosting sessions they've had. Technically the requirement of boosting never exists to get trophies. It's just a convenient choice to make things easier (much easier in many cases). If it's not essential, it's technically not a requirement 👀 kind of semantics, I guess but this is a 'pet peeves' thread not a 'major complaints' thread
  6. ^ Probably this. I did Nightmare before the update that really nerfed Nightmare but I'm not too sure. It's quite dramatic, plus there's a LOT of cheese strats/speedrunning methods in solo. Time however, can't see that being much different because the longest trophy is unchanged really and that's to kill loads of enemies. You can farm in a couple locations if you want to go the boring way buy it'll still take a fair bit of time that it's worth just running the game normally for fun.
  7. I'm looking forward to it. Sucks that I missed a sale on the pass and I'm kind of hoping it'll go down again before I get around to playing the DLC. As for trophies, I expect them to be the same as the Steam achievements that the updates giving if they're going to be there at all and in that case it looks to be a very standard affair to just play through the content and find some secrets.
  8. I'm never a fan of obsessive focus on an individual number (or even a small collections of numbers) to make any judgements about a person and neither the abilities nor whether their profile is in some way 'cool' or 'uncool' Whilst I could always make the point of "no one should care" and I certainly don't, I can understand the idea of trying to decipher what makes a so-called 'great' account in a community revolving around these online gamer profiles. But, I always feel these individual stats are not the best metric at all for an overall profile. Any stat that can be seen at a glance needs more depth and context, there's so much that needs unpacking. We all know that individual stats can be gamed. Total level with Rata stacking, URs with easy UR games, comp% by avoiding starting difficult games/games you're unsure you'll finish, avg. rarity by avoiding high avg. games. All stats can be inflated, often at the sacrifice of another stat (but not always). So long as you're actively focusing on improving that stat it'll shoot up. Focusing on one stats always brings me back to when I used to play Battlefield and some people were obsessed with KDR as the single most important metric for your skill level (still a thing in most shooters but I have particular memories from BF). People would dedicate their accounts to KDR by playing only Rush, quitting if they're not on the attackers side where they can safely sit at the very back of the map where the enemy cannot go (especially as the match progresses forwards) and snipe maybe 5 kills in the entire match at very low risk anyone's going to bother counter-sniping at that range while they're being pushed (and if they did, the sniper would just quit if they feel pressured or died). You'd see these guys records with like a 10+, sometimes 20+ KDR but their kills per minute is like 0.1, quit% of like 75%+ and zero objective stats at all but acting like they're one of if not THE best player in the game because their KDR stat dominates yours . These are the types of people who'd never make it in the pro/eSports scene for example but you'll see them at the top of in-game leaderboards for one on the in-game stats. Just take any game you play online and look at some of the in-game leaderboards (if they're not hacked) and see if you spot any pro players for that game... Nope right? All random guys you've never heard of, heck, maybe you just easily beat one of these guys in matchmaking one day and didn't even notice. Honestly, same thing can happen in single player games with leaderboards. People find easy ways to farm score in a level by taking like 1 hour farming an infinite spawn or something and make the top 10 for a level but still outright suck at the game compared to those thousands of positions below them because most people just aren't that bothered about that stat. It's fine if you do care, but it doesn't inherently make you better because you place higher than someone who doesn't. If your intent is to focus on a specific stat then your competition you want to measure up against are those who are focusing on the same stat, no one else. Like heck, you don't compare a sprinter and a long distance runner. If your focus is on URs you're not 'better' than someone with less URs who isn't even trying to participate in that race. Theres a decent amount of people who have enough skill and the time in this community to absolutely destroy these UR hunters at their own game if they decided to switch their focus to URs but that's just not what they're into so they don't. It's why I mostly say generic things like a high level account being a good/great trophy hunter but wouldn't comment much further or read anymore into it. The metric is trophies hunted, they've hunted more therefore they're better in that stat of trophies hunted, quite simple. Same with URs, if you have more URs you're the better UR hunter, you've succeeded in gaining a higher quantity of URs, simple. No qualitative argument, just a barebones 'they've shown to be the better person at getting that number higher out of those who tried because their number is higher'. But comparing any of these people generally? Who's got a better account? Who's 'cooler'? No idea, not based on those at a glance stats at least. Where do you start? I don't know. No individual stat makes your account 'cool' or interesting in any way and honestly if anything seeing an over inflated stat like super high URs, trophy level or super low avg% almost makes your profile look somewhat cringe to me, it looks unnatural, forced and manipulated. I think the 'coolest' profiles are those that naturally reflect on the person who owns it, the ones that have some individual character and originality. I'd rather see you for who you are than a controlled image of yourself you're trying to project to the world. But regardless, the best accounts can still look any way they like because all that qualifies your account to be awesome is that you're having fun and that you think it's awesome. While I'm needlessly dumping on stat elitism in this topic however, pedestal platinums as I like to call them are yet another thing I see people latch to that don't make or break an account for me either. These are games that in the community are put on a huge pedestal like they're the hardest tasks in all of gaming out there and that having one of these trophies by default makes your profile 'elite' and you a super special breed of gamer. Notable examples include SMB and Necrodancer. Not that games with reputations such as those shouldn't be acknowledged or given credit if someone were to finish the trophies, but some people just see one game on a set list and suddenly act like the person is now literally God and the most skilled gamer in existence... Yeeeeah, no, the ceiling is far far higher than the constraints of the Playstation trophy system and if the most skillful task you've ever done in the medium of videogames is something with a trophy awarded for it then it's really not the huge flex you think it is. It's great, don't get me wrong, not downplaying anyone's accomplishments. It's just that there's so many people far above and beyond that level of ability that putting some people on a pedestal that don't come to close to those tiers of ability feels weird and almost feels dismissive of the many people far above and beyond to confines of an achievement system that for the most part is contextually accessible. I would make connections with the rise of social media but I don't want to head too much further off topic than I already have. In short, there's no simple single metric for what I think is or isn't cool and I like seeing a wide variety of unique individual people enjoying their hobby in whichever way they see fit. Rata-stacking included tbh, if you're having a good time I'm rooting for you.
  9. It may be easy, it may be super rare, but the hardest part is playing Fortnite for a damn good few hours and that's gotta take some real mental fortitude .
  10. Show me a SFW picture of Amouranth.
  11. That's what PS+ will do to a game lol, just wait until they move on. Been having friends of mine who play it complain about the game lately and they've played on PC for some time. I've also had poor experiences of other multiplayer games during their PS+ life cycle. I'm just passing on the game in general personally. These 'among us' type games have never appealed to me even way back when the genre was only just establishing itself, not going to pretend I like them now that they're the hot new trend. That pretty much sums up the issue stemming from the bulk of those jumping into it from PS+. The game wasn't like that and thanks to crossplay people who enjoyed the game pre-PS+ are suffering at the moment too.
  12. And why this needed a thread I don't know? Well done? Fun fact, you can post status updates on this site.
  13. Honestly I think this game gets too much shit. Was this game a huge letdown from its hype? Yes. Did the game have many game breaking technical issues at launch? Also yes. In its current state is it at 'bad' game? Not really. And honestly those sites who'd rank it one of the worst games they've ever played or anything like that I feel hasn't played enough games. If we want to compare with other popular disappointments for example this is at least more fun to play through than, say, Fallout 76 or Cyberpunk 2077. It's pretty much a discount Mega Man game of sorts really. Not a 'bad' one, but not up to the heights of that franchise and there's other indie titles that do a better job at delivering that type of game. In a sale or something though I'd say it's worth picking up and giving a try. I think the difficulty is quite overrated at times too, the 5/10s sound appropriate to me as a middle-of-the-road level of difficulty. It's not particularly easy but it's not exactly hard either. It's much easier than your typical Mega Man game and other imitators. If it weren't for its notoriety I reckon most people who got this game would have played it and then mostly forgotten about it with no strong feelings either way. It's quite an average title without all the Kickstarter story behind it making it seem much worse than it is.
  14. Alright then, when's my copy arriving?
  15. I have a question regarding how the playthrough trophies are tracked. Does each playthrough related trophy need to be done in one sitting. For example, beating the game with 'x' character. Do you need to start explicitly from the first stage with each character all the way to the end without backing out of the game/going to the main menu or do they just need to have each simply beaten every stage once. There's no option to 'continue', only to select previously unlocked levels so I was unsure how the game treats taking breaks in regards to trophies. Also, once a stage is unlocked for one character it unlocks for everyone. Same question regarding hardcore and no-death playthroughs. Does it track stage by stage or does it specifically need to be one continuous unbroken playthrough. I know the game isn't particularly long so it's not like finishing some bloated AAA title in one sitting but it would be helpful to know that if I don't have time to commit to a full run then not to start one at that point or it would be all for nothing.