gyrocop

Premium Member
 PSN Profile
  • Content count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

32 Excellent

1 Follower

About gyrocop

  • Rank
    Premium Member

Recent Profile Visitors

672 profile views
  1. They've done this for each game in the "Recharged" series. Centipede is Blue Ă–yster Cult, Asteroids is Queen, Black Widow is Electric Light Orchestra, Breakout is Pink Floyd, Gravitar is Laurie Anderson, and Yars is Rush. I think it's just a silly little thing they do with artists that were big at the time of the original games' release.
  2. It doesn't. At least not significantly. I'm arguing the reverse. That the broader gaming landscape affects this. I'm trying to validate this issue as a symptom and not a cause. Broader trends in gaming and corporate culture has brought this nuisance (however insignificant it may seem), and how annoying it is differs from people to people. But the insignificant and the significant issues have the same source. Blatant profiteering. I kind of just wanted us to unite in that knowledge rather than feed into devisive rhetoric of who has the bigger problem. I don't mind bad art. I actually have real affinity for a lot of bad art. Soul Axiom was universally pandered, but I love it. It's such a mess of bonkers ideas that it feels like a dumb sci-fi fever dream. Even things like My Name Is Mayo (which usually gets ridiculed here) at least had a premise and charm that made it feel like it was created with an artistic purpose and/or vision. What I dislike is soulless corporate art created for the sole purpose of profit. Like those ugly monkey NFTs. I fail to see how asset flips or basically recycling the same game is a purposeful creative statement and not just greed in video game form. I don't like it because it is bad art. I don't like it because it doesn't feel like art at all to me. If you think that these games have genuine artistic purpose or that games don't need to have that to be considered worthwhile, then I'll agree to disagree. There is nothing but subjectivity in those discussions.
  3. Okay. This is going to be slightly meta, so bear with me here. The reason why I initially replied to this thread, was that I disagreed with the idea that since something was worse than something else, talking about the less bad thing is misguided or nitpicking. If that was the case, then we'd all just talk about global warming and nothing else forever. You're right that me being inconvenienced when finding good unknown indie games seem trivial. I can truthfully argue that Steam has gotten so bad that I have given up trying, but seen in context with things like micro transactions and loot boxes it seems slightly petty, and I should have done more to stay on the topic of profiteering, because that is my real big gripe. The idea I wanted to pitch in my original post was that the mentality of making these garbage games whose only real selling point is easy trophies, is the same mentality that leads to these more serious DLC problems. The disregard of the artform of making games in lieu of profit. And by just handwaving smaller issues away, we're denying a bigger picture. I didn't want to get the idea across that this is some world ending issue, but rather that it too plays a part in why and how corporate greed influences the video game industry. By refusing to acknowledge the ways big companies make things worse for the culture than just the biggest, most egregious examples that we know of, we kinda lose sight of overall systemic problems that cause stuff like micro transactions, season passes, and smaller companies like Smobile hitting the addiction center of a subset of gamers for profit to exist. It makes the artform worse. Even if it plays just a tiny part. Which is why it shouldn't be ridiculed to talk about stuff like this. Even if the OP seemed a bit dramatic.
  4. I don't think people can't see the difference in quality either. That wasn't my argument. As I said, I think only diehard trophy hunters are the ones buying these games. I'm just kind of lamenting that it works. That a company profits over the instant gratification Skinner box that is trophy hunting, and it clutters up the store, making finding worthwhile hidden gems more tedious, and that Sony is willfully letting this happen since they profit off it too. That's it.
  5. While I don't disagree that the current DLC culture is a bigger problem, acknowledging that is not really a good counter-argument to what's been said. Especially since what's happening here attest to a bigger problem. These games are absolutely not just "goofy little games". They are low effort palette swaps most likely ported from mobile. That's why they can release so many so quickly. They are essentially using the trophy hunter fanatics to earn a profit (because I honestly don't see what other demographic would willingly buy more than one of these games). It's the same thing with that Bible game company. Unfortunately Sony's ever-increasingly lax policy for what can be put on their storefront is negatively impacting actual good indie games and the consumers, because not many wants to wade through this money-grubbing schlock to find an actual gem. It's the reason why storefronts like Steam or the iOS/Play store are such hot garbage. Because while there are a lot of worthwhile entertainment it gets buried in free-to-play nonsense and asset-flips. The PS Store isn't as bad yet, but the quality has been slipping over the past five years, and these cashgrab games are definitely contributing to that culture. Is it the worst part of the corporate gaming sphere? No. But I don't think you should just wave away this stuff, since it's another piece of puzzle that is this hellscape we call modern day video gaming.
  6. It's not an ideal ending and it does have some major problems that seem antithetical to the nature of the entire trilogy, but I'm honestly getting some nostalgia seeing people talk about ME3's ending. AAA games have fallen so far in terms of artistic quality that replaying the trilogy felt like a breath of fresh air and a direct time capsule to a time where every game didn't have to be an open-world Skinner box and where the biggest controversy was a bad ending. Seeing the ending through that lense, it is honestly not that bad... or maybe it's even worse. A sign of what came after. A game that actually had vision, worsened by corporate time restraint and some bad development decisions. What lit the fuse of the downward spiral of big budget blockbuster games in to the dreary trench of loot boxes and low effort.
  7. As much as it pains me to say it, being a fan of the franchise for almost two decades; I think I'm going to jump off the Kingdom Hearts train now. The gameplay has consistently become worse ever since hitting the peak in KH2. It prioritizes spectacle rather than actual thought out combat. Well-balanced combat challenges can only come so far apparently. What is more important is to make the screen flash fun colours all the time, and to fill out the combat with pointless minigames that don't add anything substantial to the base gameplay loop. The story is a mess, but worse than that Nomura seems incapable of giving it any sort of closure, keeping the series in absolute perpetuity by never letting things fully return to a form of status quo, leaving every single ending unsatisfying. Even as we embark on this new arc, we have a lot of unexplained baggage and recapping from the previous games, which is going to probably take up most of the first half of KH4 together with pointless Disney worlds that are paradoxically both the bread and butter of the franchise and complete filler at the same time. The final half of the game is going to be setup for the next game. Continue this loop of KH games until the Big Freeze claims us all. It's all setup, no real payoff. A lot of this is probably also just due to me getting older and the world getting worse. Disney is no longer a magical place, but a world-conquering money-hogging entity, sucking the soul out of everything they touch, and it is most likely impacting the story that could be told here. KH used to be a fairly magical franchise, but the mask is slipping. I guess, I just don't want to be there when it finally falls off revealing Bob Chapek knee deep in blood soaked money and Nomura making out with his own butt.
  8. Aw, you're telling me now? My dog got neutered last week and they just threw them out!
  9. I'm teetering dangerously close to 30,000.
  10. I think attributing some kind of success story to Jim Ryan here is going to only get people complacent about the less than ideal changes that will pop up every now and then. Jim Ryan does not care about the consumers, he cares about their money, and it just so happens that the consumers' wishes and corporate greed have common interest here. This is 100% a business decision, and a no-brainer at that. "Should we partner with the biggest chat platform catered to gamers?" Like, duh, obviously they should. Financially, that is just an easy decision. I'm not saying that this isn't good for the consumers. Granted, sole distributors of services on any type of platform discourages competition and it furthers the Discord domination to become some sort of virtual monopoly, so I could. But I'm not. I'm just saying that Sony didn't do this for you, but their shareholders. And praising them for something like this, is just sort of dangerous, because it is eliciting a positive response for something that didn't require a moral discipline to accomplish. If Jim Ryan makes a decision that is not financially secure, but great for consumers, based on some sort of moral principle or diligence of doing the right thing for the consumers, THEN I will be impressed. To underline: I don't blame anybody for being happy about this. I just don't want anyone to conflate this rational business decision with any actual respect or affinity for the player base.
  11. Haven't played the rest of the series, but in Asdivine Hearts 1, you can buy special items for the different party members, and if you give them the one they hate, you can lower their affinity and thereby engineer the endings you get just right before you face the final boss. You just need to have done the normal endings before you save over your files for the true endings.
  12. Sephirothic Stories is pretty quick, around 10-15 hours, but out of the ones I've played it's also the worst one by far. I'll recommend Alvastia Chronicles. It's one of the quicker ones (20 or so hours) and it's also pretty good. The stories are all super JRPG-y with no real new beats or twists. Heard Dragon Sinker should be good, but I haven't gotten to that one. I've only played a bit of Revenant Saga, but I sorta remember the story being a bit darker and more interesting than the usual Kemco fare. I think you're thinking of Rideon who made Marenian Tavern Story and Blacksmith of the Sand Kingdom which from what little I have played are much longer affairs, but also pretty cool, and have a bit of management sim attached to their JRPGs. Kemco also sometimes publishes a couple of different types of things like the visual novel Raging Loop to the Mom Hid My Game series and Citizens Unite! Earth x Space. They also have a couple of more Japan-only titles like that.
  13. What's the alternative? Not using DRM-based marketplaces at all? Why didn't I think of tha- oh right, they don't exist. Even arguing that you should totally forego using PSN, Xbox Market, Steam and all that, and go with completely disc-based purchasing methods, what would that accomplish? Patches are fairly often tightly controlled by DRM, DRM are usually also put in the disc, either in form of security, mandated downloadable files, or "always online services", and this is becoming ever more present, and long term supporting physical media will do squat to steer clear of these problems. Like, sure, if I had the foresight to always buy physical I might not have the trouble with the PS3 as I have now, but in the future that whole argument is going to be null and void. You also have to think about what the consequences of "not supporting something so unsustainable" actually are. If we all, hypothetically, revert ourselves to a time where everything we did was disc-based (PS2 style), this will completely drain the now booming indie scene that really truly started due to downloadable content. Blu-ray manufacturing on a global level is not cheap, and if it was, it would be completely unsustainable with how many games are released every day now. Now this might be a reasonable sacrifice for you personally, but is it actually a good thing for the medium overall? I'm not convinced. By limiting the amount of money that can flow to small time developers you are essentially putting a much higher threshold on what games can be produced. And the ones with the ressources to actually still produce games? Yup, those are the ones that are going to force more DRM nonsense down our throat. By buying anything, anywhere, you are feeding into an ecosystem of anti-consumerism. By just having a PS3/4/5 and buying games for it in any capacity, physical or digital, you are essentially supporting an industry and corporations that do this stuff. And in the end it wouldn't even matter. People less discerning about these DRM restrictions than you or I, people who are just casual users of video games, people who don't really care about preservation, will just keep on trucking, feeding into a loop of anti-consumerist practices. It's true, everything dies. GOG is pretty cool about DRM issues, but you still have to use their servers to download things. Steam isn't going to exist forever. Eventually my PS3 will perish. And I too, will die. The future is downloads, and it's already here and have been for decades, and there is just no way around that, no matter how much we whine and flail our arms about it. Trying to negate a wider dystopian trait by personally investing in physical is like trying to fight climate change by going vegan. It's admirable that you want to do something about it, but it's not going to matter. We need policy. We need to have this be an issue, that Sony or Microsoft or Nintendo or Valve can't just legally handwave away. Have preservation of art on the agenda. The laws of practically every country are majorly outdated when it comes to these things, and until policies are in place to help this, it's just going to be very hard to preserve games no matter what you do. But don't go blame this on consumers. By doing so, you're essentially taking Sony's side. "It's your fault that things are this way. You could have just not supported it. We totally didn't stack the deck or mislead you in any way to support these practices. This is on you." Sorry for the wall of text. This was not intended to be this long.
  14. Just because something isn't shocking doesn't mean it shouldn't be criticized. That's an oversimplification of the problem. The problem is that closing down the store is anti-consumerist and anti-preservation, and while it staying up is better, it just rusting away, decaying in a solitary group of servers with no sense of pride or dignity, getting progressively worse and worse, like an Alzheimer's patient with no family, is also bad. Nobody said that it staying up is worse. People are just annoyed that they are not being well-maintained or updated for more contemporary needs. Two things can be bad simultaneously.
  15. I think I know why, but I don't have a way to fix it. I did all of the challenges in Singapore, but I never bothered during it in Siberia. "Capital Punishment" unlocked for me despite never having done any of the requirements, leading me to believe that doing all challenges in Singapore pops the wrong trophy. I think they linked both locations to the same trophy or something, in which case resetting progress might not fix that one particular trophy.