Cassylvania

Cassylvania's Miserable Little Pile of Platinums

2,764 posts in this topic

11 hours ago, Rune_Crys said:

Seriously? Urgh, I think I need to lie down. I can't livestream worth beans and now future games will require you to put yourself on Facecam to complete the game? If Square-Enix does this with Kingdom Hearts 4, I am done and sticking with Sims 4 on PC and Super Mario Maker 3. 1f621.png

 

I know. Live streaming should be optional for people who wish to do it. Not be mandatory.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2020 at 6:19 PM, Spaz said:

They're already talking about live streaming being mandatory to play video games in the future. Just thinking about that makes my stomach churn.

 

Eh, are you sure you are not confusing 'streaming games', like, you know, what PS Now is, with live streaming yourself while playing? I'd need a source if you really mean the latter, as I can't imagine that being discussed anywhere.

 

Game streaming being the future, that I can see. You wouldn't need to build hardware anymore. Just process the game server-side and anyone can play on any device without requiring computational power. That's the future of portable gaming. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Arcesius said:

Eh, are you sure you are not confusing 'streaming games', like, you know, what PS Now is, with live streaming yourself while playing? I'd need a source if you really mean the latter, as I can't imagine that being discussed anywhere.

 

Game streaming being the future, that I can see. You wouldn't need to build hardware anymore. Just process the game server-side and anyone can play on any device without requiring computational power. That's the future of portable gaming. 

 

PS Now is good for people who wish to play PS3 games on the PS4. I'm not griping about that. What I'm saying is there is talk of making games live streaming only which means they're the only way to play those games.

 

The way I see it, downloading and installing games that have no hardware or physical copy is good enough. We already have a lot more digital than we have physical. But I don't want something where I am forced to live stream and the only way to play that game is by doing so.

 

Let the people on YouTube live stream. Let the people on Twitch.tv live stream. Don't force people who don't want to go to either platform live stream.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Arcesius said:

But that's what I mean. Nobody is talking about forcing players to live-stream, but to offer games through streaming services. It's two completely unrelated concepts.

 

Nobody is ever going to ask of you to livestream on twitch if you want to play a game. But for example, there is not going to be a Vita 2 because game streaming services will replace portable gaming devices. 

 

Not even 'apples and oranges' but rather 'apples and helicopters'.

 

Offer games through streaming services only. That's my whole gripe about the whole thing. It stinks. Just give me a good single player game, AAA or indie, doesn't matter which, that doesn't force me to jump through hula hoops.

 

I would do Twitch voluntarily, as everybody should. I've done streams on Twitch myself, but I do not have sufficient equipment nor is my computer powerful enough to handle a quality stream. If I ever get around to streaming, it will replace my presence on these forums.

 

The Nintendo Switch is good enough. We don't need full on game streaming services, and the way they're being mentioned, I'd rather stay far away from them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are enough areas in the world where internet connections are nod good enough to allow for game streaming services. My own connection does not allow for more than 1.35 MB/s (yes, that is true). Whoever makes games that are streaming-service only will have to pass on quite some revenue. I doubt it will be streaming service only for the foreseeable future. I definitely would never play a streamable-only game regardless, even if I could.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rally-Vincent--- said:

There are enough areas in the world where internet connections are nod good enough to allow for game streaming services. My own connection does not allow for more than 1.35 MB/s (yes, that is true). Whoever makes games that are streaming-service only will have to pass on quite some revenue. I doubt it will be streaming service only for the foreseeable future. I definitely would never play a streamable-only game regardless, even if I could.

 

Most rural areas in the United States cannot get adequate internet service. One of the major problems is the bigger companies (Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, Century Link, Windstream, Frontier) bought out a lot of territory and issued monopolies, meaning other companies, especially smaller ones, cannot offer service.

 

There are a few places in the United States where some small towns have their own local service, others have municipalities. Dealing with a local provider is a lot better than dealing with a corporate behemoth like Comcast. They don't care about you, they simply ask for your money and nickel and dime you whenever they can. I've seen my share of Comcast internet bills in my time. 

 

Sadly with an idiot president and Net Neutrality being demolished, it will be a long time before a lot of areas in the US will get adequate service. In most small towns you're simply screwed, because you're stuck with Comcast or whoever provides the internet service. With them being the only choice, they can give you abysmally slow internet one day and somewhat better service the next day. There's no consistency.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Rally-Vincent--- said:

There are enough areas in the world where internet connections are nod good enough to allow for game streaming services. My own connection does not allow for more than 1.35 MB/s (yes, that is true). Whoever makes games that are streaming-service only will have to pass on quite some revenue. I doubt it will be streaming service only for the foreseeable future. I definitely would never play a streamable-only game regardless, even if I could.

 

Maybe the future they are talking about is more like 5-10-15 years or more from now, when the quality of the Internet connection won't be a thing any more. When it comes to playing streamable-only games, I find it uncompelling now (never even tried PS Now as it's not available in Poland), but I guess my attitude may change over time - 10-15 years ago I never watched movies online (admittedly, there were fewer options and the Internet quality was much worse), these days with Netflix and HBO GO I don't remember when I last actually bought a movie on a physical disc (though I am still old-school when it comes to music  and buy quite a lot of music CDs, often times only to convert them to MP3s). 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spaz said:

Offer games through streaming services only. That's my whole gripe about the whole thing. It stinks. Just give me a good single player game, AAA or indie, doesn't matter which, that doesn't force me to jump through hula hoops.

 

But that's my point. There is no "through streaming services only". There is still a PS5 / Xbox whateveritscalled coming out, and it will be supported for many years to come. Nobody is talking about making gaming "streamable only", and certainly we should not mix the two concepts together of "streaming service" or "live streaming", which seems to have caused confusion here. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Spaz said:

The Nintendo Switch is good enough. We don't need full on game streaming services, and the way they're being mentioned, I'd rather stay far away from them.

 

Right, but the Switch is Nintendo's main console, and it is portable at the same time. The consequence is that it cannot run powerful games, but it doesn't have to given what games Nintendo is famous for. With Sony and Microsoft, it's different. Their main consoles are power-houses capable of running incredibly resource-consuming games, and those consoles will stay, at least for a couple of years. 

 

But there is no incentive for those companies to also release a next-gen portable console when you can save costs on making that hardware and instead offer subscriptions so streaming services. I can see a pretty close future where people are hooking up their Dual Shocks to their laptop / tablet / whatever and play PS5 games on those screens while riding a bus, with the games being processed server-side. But it's not going to be the "only future", at least I don't think so. It won't replace home consoles, but it might replace portable ones. 

 

 

27 minutes ago, Rally-Vincent--- said:

There are enough areas in the world where internet connections are nod good enough to allow for game streaming services. My own connection does not allow for more than 1.35 MB/s (yes, that is true). Whoever makes games that are streaming-service only will have to pass on quite some revenue. I doubt it will be streaming service only for the foreseeable future. I definitely would never play a streamable-only game regardless, even if I could.

 

Precisely why I wanted to chime in 🙂 That being said, I worked on 5G-wireless technology during my PhD, and at least in Europe the technology is currently being rolled out. It won't be long before we have coverage in most areas, and downloading speed won't be a problem anymore (if you have a subscription, of course). Give it a couple of years. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, det_gittes said:

Maybe the future they are talking about is more like 5-10-15 years or more from now, when the quality of the Internet connection won't be a thing any more. When it comes to playing streamable-only games, I find it uncompelling now (never even tried PS Now as it's not available in Poland), but I guess my attitude may change over time 

 

I 100% agree. I haven't tried PS Now (yet), and I don't know if the concept is something for me, but I'm certainly intrigued and, if done correctly, I can see the appeal. Let's say I'm not close-minded about the topic, and can't wait to see how the whole concept evolves 🙂

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I am getting very confused. I just got out of Furrowfield(yeah, I am playing Sims 4 on PC a lot so I wasted a day there instead of doing Dragon Quest Builders 2) and now everyone's debating on this "you must live stream your play to be able to beat a game" stuff. The reason I remarked was because I was a bit scared. If it's just you have to press the Share button and select either Twitch or Youtube and have your gameplay be recorded to continue a game, it's not that terrible. Not the best(because not everyone wants to record their gameplay for the world to see) but not terrible. If it's something more complex then I can see the problem.

 

I mean, I quit my last MMO and am trying not to watch any videos of those MMOs and get tempted back into playing them because they tempt you with lootbox booster card packs to get cool items. If this 'you must live stream your gameplay and give commentary on it or you can't pass Level 1" bullcrap gets approved, this will force players to spend money at Sony's livestream shop which they'll siphon a bit to the developers for making them money. This is underhanded narcissism and any business that does something like this digs its own grave. There is a limit to how much bullcrap people are willing to sacrifice in order to get great entertainment. I hit my limit with Wizard101 recently and if Sony betrays us, we are through. Nintendo will get more business and Sony cuts its head off by what could be considered draconic business practices. I hope they wake up and realize that the reason Nintendo is doing better and selling more is because they listen to their customers. :(

 

However, I don't have any knowledge on this. Spaz, did you read an article saying this was Sony's plan for the future?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Rune_Crys said:

However, I don't have any knowledge on this. Spaz, did you read an article saying this was Sony's plan for the future?

 

What is meant was "games as a service" opposed to games you can buy in retail or digital as your own. Some people think that "games as a service" - meaning something like Netflix, only for games - is the future, and you know how IT guys are: just because they think it's the best thing since the Virtual Bread Slicing Simulator, they want to make it mandatory instead of optional because it's the "future" and they know it better. It's not about you streaming your gameplay, but playing games over a provided server. The game runs on a remote server, not on your console.

Edited by Rally-Vincent---
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Spaz said:

What I'm saying is there is talk of making games live streaming only which means they're the only way to play those games.

 

Noone is talking about doing this, what are you talking about?

 

Unless you're talking about the great success that is Google Stadia, which if anything proves the exact opposite of what you're stating

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

22 hours ago, det_gittes said:

 

Maybe the future they are talking about is more like 5-10-15 years or more from now, when the quality of the Internet connection won't be a thing any more. When it comes to playing streamable-only games, I find it uncompelling now (never even tried PS Now as it's not available in Poland), but I guess my attitude may change over time - 10-15 years ago I never watched movies online (admittedly, there were fewer options and the Internet quality was much worse), these days with Netflix and HBO GO I don't remember when I last actually bought a movie on a physical disc (though I am still old-school when it comes to music  and buy quite a lot of music CDs, often times only to convert them to MP3s). 

 

Netflix starting streaming services around a decade ago. That company has taken so many movies off their library I find it difficult to keep supporting them. Amazon Prime and Hulu I did for a while but I dropped them because I wasn't watching enough movies/TV shows.

 

I find it funny that music artists like Taylor Swift have gotten some of their music on actual vinyl records, which is basically vintage material. I used to burn music CDs and pass them along to my friends, then it became a better option to just use Spotify and Pandora as music services. I haven't bought an actual music CD since 2008 - 2009, which is saying something.

 

22 hours ago, Arcesius said:

But that's my point. There is no "through streaming services only". There is still a PS5 / Xbox whateveritscalled coming out, and it will be supported for many years to come. Nobody is talking about making gaming "streamable only", and certainly we should not mix the two concepts together of "streaming service" or "live streaming", which seems to have caused confusion here.

 

There was a time when DLC and microtransactions were a pipe dream in somebody's eye. Now they're basically common practice among AAA developers, because it so happens that they make them more money. With how much AAA games cost nowadays, publishers aren't going to risk anything that doesn't cater to the current status quo.

 

I've done a couple live streams and have basically supported a good number of streamers on both YouTube and Twitch.tv for several years. The option should be there and I find they're a great way to support the people you watch.

 

Games "through streaming services only" may be possible. I'm not saying it will happen because I'm just drawing assumptions out of my head, but currently it's not something that sits well with me. EA and Activision have done a number of scummy practices in the past, in recent times they forced players to buy into microtransactions/lootboxes for Star Wars Battlefront 2, which got them a huge backlash.

 

PS Now will probably expand to more countries as time goes on. I have no need for the service, I got enough games to last me through next year.

 

22 hours ago, Arcesius said:

Right, but the Switch is Nintendo's main console, and it is portable at the same time. The consequence is that it cannot run powerful games, but it doesn't have to given what games Nintendo is famous for. With Sony and Microsoft, it's different. Their main consoles are power-houses capable of running incredibly resource-consuming games, and those consoles will stay, at least for a couple of years.

 

Nintendo hasn't been able to run powerful games in probably 20 years. They also made the mistake of sticking with cartridges during the Nintendo 64 era, which made Capcom, Square and Konami to jump ship over to the PlayStation 1 to develop their products on the Sony console.

 

The Nintendo Wii was fun but was too much of a gimmick to really be a proper competitor to the PS3 and 360. The Wii U was basically the same thing, some broken promises and a vastly underpowered console.

 

The only reason I would invest my money into Nintendo are two things: First party exclusives, which are still decent, and indies. Nintendo has been a bit more friendly on encouraging indie developers to port their games over to their system. Sony with it's censorship on anime games and it's stubbornness seems to think otherwise. Nintendo is the only real company left that truly cares about the portable gaming market. I absolutely despise mobile gaming and it's malicious practices. The Switch isn't a bad system, but Nintendo exclusives would be the only reason I would buy one.

 

22 hours ago, Arcesius said:

But there is no incentive for those companies to also release a next-gen portable console when you can save costs on making that hardware and instead offer subscriptions so streaming services. I can see a pretty close future where people are hooking up their Dual Shocks to their laptop / tablet / whatever and play PS5 games on those screens while riding a bus, with the games being processed server-side. But it's not going to be the "only future", at least I don't think so. It won't replace home consoles, but it might replace portable ones.

 

This is only going to benefit people who live in metropolis areas.... cities like London, Paris, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Amsterdam, etc etc etc. You need strong and stable internet to run most streaming services smoothly. Doesn't necessarily have to be blazing fast speeds like you get from Google Fiber, but it has to be reliable and dependable 24/7. I can tell you first hand that many, many areas here in the United States can't so much as pull 10 - 25 MBPS, which is already pretty slow and shitty when you compare to what fiber internet is capable of.

 

Those buses will have to provide strong and good WI-FI. Most commercial airlines here in the States have terrible WI-FI, and I don't expect the buses to be any better. You're looking at maybe 5 - 10 years before we'll see any progress, and unfortunately my country doesn't seem to care about internet being the "ideal future". Americans now are protesting over a cop (Derek Chauvin) shooting an African American (George Floyd). It's pretty fucked up over here. Your country (Switzerland) has much better services, better facilities and a health care system that actually works. So you should be thankful with where you live.

 

10 hours ago, Rune_Crys said:

I mean, I quit my last MMO and am trying not to watch any videos of those MMOs and get tempted back into playing them because they tempt you with lootbox booster card packs to get cool items. If this 'you must live stream your gameplay and give commentary on it or you can't pass Level 1" bullcrap gets approved, this will force players to spend money at Sony's livestream shop which they'll siphon a bit to the developers for making them money. This is underhanded narcissism and any business that does something like this digs its own grave. There is a limit to how much bullcrap people are willing to sacrifice in order to get great entertainment. I hit my limit with Wizard101 recently and if Sony betrays us, we are through. Nintendo will get more business and Sony cuts its head off by what could be considered draconic business practices. I hope they wake up and realize that the reason Nintendo is doing better and selling more is because they listen to their customers. :(

 

However, I don't have any knowledge on this. Spaz, did you read an article saying this was Sony's plan for the future?

 

That's my entire point.

 

There's been nothing I've seen that suggests Sony wants to carve the future in this fashion. I've just heard rumors and talk across the internet to have me assume this might be a possibility. I will drop Sony if they ever green light this crap.

 

3 hours ago, WatertownsFinest said:

 

Noone is talking about doing this, what are you talking about?

 

Unless you're talking about the great success that is Google Stadia, which if anything proves the exact opposite of what you're stating

 

It's one thing to come over to me and tell me to stop harassing a Twitch streamer. It's another thing to tell me that I'm making this stuff up, which I'm not, it's been talked about on the internet.

 

Please, for both of us, come up with a valid argument. You've done nothing but take potshots at me these past couple months and I am getting very annoyed.

Edited by Spaz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am gonna say this about those wanting the Switch to have a achievement system. The Switch is fine as it is. It doesn't need a trophy or achievement system. Nintendo (I think) said that they won't implent a trophy or achievement system. That is my opinion on the matter and I think the Switch is fine without a achievement system.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, guys. Let's play nicely. We're here to bash on games and bad business practices, not each other.

 

Anyway, it was a very productive weekend. I managed to finish ALL of the TLOU multiplayer trophies, thanks to some awesome people and two very long boosting sessions. I also managed to watch the entirety of Avatar: The Last Airbender. I don't think I've ever said this about a show before, but it was better than I remember. In fact, I may go so far as to say it's the best animated show I've ever seen, which includes the legendary King of the Hill. I'd have to think about that one. KotH is something I could watch any day, any episode, for any amount of time. A:TLA almost requires watching it from beginning to end. I think my favorite character is Iroh, but Zuko may be a close second. His story arc was wonderfully done. I'm actually going to pick up the comic books so that I can continue the story. And...maybe I'll give Korra another chance. I remember liking what little I saw.

 

And despite what you all probably think, I DID start Persona 5 Royal. I only played for an hour, but I should be able to play more tonight. I'm just a little confused on the trophy guide. It lists a lot of missable trophies, but supposedly they're easy to get? Maybe it'll make more sense once I understand the mechanics of the game.

 

What else...? Well, you guys were talking about games as a service. I don't know how I feel about that. On one hand, I think the convenience is great. This whole global situation is only going to push digital goods and services in the future. And while I like being able to own the things I buy and display them on my shelf, there's something to be said about moving away from physical media. I love NOT having stacks of DVDs and CDs strewn throughout my bedroom. When I get in my car, I can just connect to Spotify and listen to whatever I want. That's worth a few dollars a month.

 

13 minutes ago, MMX20 said:

I am gonna say this about those wanting the Switch to have a achievement system. The Switch is fine as it is. It doesn't need a trophy or achievement system. Nintendo (I think) said that they won't implent a trophy or achievement system. That is my opinion on the matter and I think the Switch is fine without a achievement system.

 

Nintendo's always done their own thing, so that doesn't surprise me. At least games like Smash Bros have their own in-game achievements. I wish there was a way to share your progress with your friends, but it's nice to have something to work towards other than just, you know, finishing the game.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cassylvania said:

OK, guys. Let's play nicely. We're here to bash on games and bad business practices, not each other.

 

I wasn't even hinting at trying to bash somebody else, just the idea of "streaming services" being mandatory sparked a discussion. Still does not sit well with me, one reason being I live in an area with subpar internet. I do a lot of work on my Windows 10 laptop and it's just more reliable to use a stable WI-FI hotspot. Comcast just isn't an option for me where I live, I used to have it but I had to move.

 

Playing games on your PC via PS Now is nice, but it should not be a common business practice. If Sony and other companies are going to go full steam on streaming services expanding, the companies who supply the internet need to step up their game. That means very fast and reliable WI-FI internet on the buses and commercial airlines.

 

That's my argument in an nutshell.

 

4 hours ago, Cassylvania said:

 I also managed to watch the entirety of Avatar: The Last Airbender. I don't think I've ever said this about a show before, but it was better than I remember. In fact, I may go so far as to say it's the best animated show I've ever seen, which includes the legendary King of the Hill. I'd have to think about that one. KotH is something I could watch any day, any episode, for any amount of time. A:TLA almost requires watching it from beginning to end. I think my favorite character is Iroh, but Zuko may be a close second. His story arc was wonderfully done. I'm actually going to pick up the comic books so that I can continue the story. And...maybe I'll give Korra another chance. I remember liking what little I saw.

 

Western cartoons were never good about keeping a story arc. The best you got back in the day was Batman: The Animated Series and Gargoyles. I watched Batman: TAS not too long ago and it's absolutely amazing how well that cartoon holds up. The acting performances of Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill were brilliant. The woman who voiced Harley Quinn also did her in Batman: Arkham Asylum. A cast of talented voice actors and a show that took on a dark tone, which was quite rare back then.

 

Samurai Jack was one of my favorite cartoons from the early 2000s. The same man who did Powerpuff Girls did the show and it got me hooked. Avatar: The Last Airbender went in a completely different direction from the norm at Nickelodeon, it could of been a phenomenon had it not be canceled prematurely. It still pisses me off that Spongebob Squarepants has lasted two decades, whereas Avatar: The Last Airbender only had a brief period in the sun.

 

None of the popular adult western cartoons are all that good anymore. South Park is about the best you're going to get, the writing is still a little humorous and they actually put an effort to make the show politically incorrect. I don't find it as good as the old seasons. South Park: The Movie is still one of the funniest and most outrageous cartoon movies ever made. Family Guy was pretty good back in the day but it's suffered the same fate as The Simpsons. The writing became stale a long time ago, how The Simpsons is still around I will never know. Should of ended after that crappy attempt at a movie (The Simpsons Movie), which I thought was boring and dull.

 

4 hours ago, Cassylvania said:

What else...? Well, you guys were talking about games as a service. I don't know how I feel about that. On one hand, I think the convenience is great. This whole global situation is only going to push digital goods and services in the future. And while I like being able to own the things I buy and display them on my shelf, there's something to be said about moving away from physical media. I love NOT having stacks of DVDs and CDs strewn throughout my bedroom. When I get in my car, I can just connect to Spotify and listen to whatever I want. That's worth a few dollars a month.

 

Games are already becoming a service. Single player games that are online only (Need for Speed 2015), in-game advertisements and promotions (Assassin's Creed Origins), micro-transactions and lootboxes fueling a lot of profit, basically what mobile games started.

 

I own a great deal of things digital. DVDs are going the way of the VHS. But we are not prepared for everything digital.

 

In the future we'll just be sitting in virtual reality simulators like The Matrix. One of the best movies ever made, but the future it tells is looking more like a reality. Not comfortable with that thought.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2020 at 0:11 AM, Arcesius said:

I 100% agree. I haven't tried PS Now (yet), and I don't know if the concept is something for me, but I'm certainly intrigued and, if done correctly, I can see the appeal. Let's say I'm not close-minded about the topic, and can't wait to see how the whole concept evolves 1f642.png

 

PS Now is pretty good even if you don't want to stream PS3 games, imo. They have a good library of PS4 games, including Control for another month or two IIRC. If you can get it on sale it's really good. I live in Hawaii so the streaming itself can be iffy, but I may give it another try.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Spaz said:

Western cartoons were never good about keeping a story arc. The best you got back in the day was Batman: The Animated Series and Gargoyles. I watched Batman: TAS not too long ago and it's absolutely amazing how well that cartoon holds up. The acting performances of Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill were brilliant. The woman who voiced Harley Quinn also did her in Batman: Arkham Asylum. A cast of talented voice actors and a show that took on a dark tone, which was quite rare back then.

 

Samurai Jack was one of my favorite cartoons from the early 2000s. The same man who did Powerpuff Girls did the show and it got me hooked. Avatar: The Last Airbender went in a completely different direction from the norm at Nickelodeon, it could of been a phenomenon had it not be canceled prematurely. It still pisses me off that Spongebob Squarepants has lasted two decades, whereas Avatar: The Last Airbender only had a brief period in the sun.

 

None of the popular adult western cartoons are all that good anymore. South Park is about the best you're going to get, the writing is still a little humorous and they actually put an effort to make the show politically incorrect. I don't find it as good as the old seasons. South Park: The Movie is still one of the funniest and most outrageous cartoon movies ever made. Family Guy was pretty good back in the day but it's suffered the same fate as The Simpsons. The writing became stale a long time ago, how The Simpsons is still around I will never know. Should of ended after that crappy attempt at a movie (The Simpsons Movie), which I thought was boring and dull.

 

The think that that has spread all the way to other media. Longer story arcs are only focused in movies and other media; for the children, I think that those inconnect stories have developed a bit of our psycology, to be honest. A:TLA is regarded one of the best exactly because of that: is short, because it allows a good cohesive, comprehensible plot which makes it rewatchable and allows new people to look for it. Also, its asian inspiration is notorious. Many of the media in Japan is based upon cultural and societal phenomena, and because the education there is harder because they want to keep a standar among its people, media explores those aspects. Here in the West, we rarely see something culturally rich in our TV shows. Part of this comes from our view about conquest of America during 16th century. Specially in my county, is really difficult to attach our culture to a show (in its deep, aborigeneal origins; shows here are piles of shit in its more purest form) because much of it is considered "lesser" or "unimportant" to the common viewer. The thought that native indigens  Also, growing up with a lot of US TV shows, formed a lot of what is considered "western". 

 

10 hours ago, Cassylvania said:

Anyway, it was a very productive weekend. I managed to finish ALL of the TLOU multiplayer trophies, thanks to some awesome people and two very long boosting sessions

 

Congratulation on that! Any tips for those sessions? I'm that game to for the Summer Challenge. Sound really straightforward, but wanna be prepared, LOL. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MMX20 said:

I am gonna say this about those wanting the Switch to have a achievement system. The Switch is fine as it is. It doesn't need a trophy or achievement system. Nintendo (I think) said that they won't implent a trophy or achievement system. That is my opinion on the matter and I think the Switch is fine without a achievement system.

Of course! I was just kidding. I wasn't trying to say that Mario games should have achievements. Achievement lists are what kill fun video gaming or weaken the experience. When I played Dragon Quest Builders 2 on the Switch, I did it because I loved the game, but when I did it on PS4, the first time, it was for trophies and therefore I didn't enjoy it as much. The only reason I stopped playing DQB2 on the Switch was because one part of the story lagged so heavily it was insane.

 

If Mario or Zelda or Pokemon got a trophy list, I would probably drop them as they got their DNA ruined. Achievements are peer pressure and hurt the enjoyment of the game, maybe not to the point where it sucks, but it slashes the fun a bit because once I get a platinum trophy, I delete the game and all save data from my PS4 unless the game has replay value. DQB series has replay value as you can come up with some goal in mind, like making and uploading your own creations to the servers for others to explore. Even if I 100% Shantae Half Genie Hero, I have no motivation to go back and do another run of the game. In fact, I just re-subbed to GameFly and will probably rent the games, play them until I get bored or get the platinum, then return them for another.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Spaz said:

Samurai Jack was one of my favorite cartoons from the early 2000s. The same man who did Powerpuff Girls did the show and it got me hooked. Avatar: The Last Airbender went in a completely different direction from the norm at Nickelodeon, it could of been a phenomenon had it not be canceled prematurely. It still pisses me off that Spongebob Squarepants has lasted two decades, whereas Avatar: The Last Airbender only had a brief period in the sun.

 

As much as I would love 20 seasons of A:TLA, I don't think the show could have kept its quality up for that long. Most shows seem to peak around season 4. Others don't seem to get good until then. A:TLA is unique in that it was really good from beginning to end (even if the first season is generally considered weaker than the others). Spongebob...I dunno. I liked the earlier episodes. But I also like anything related to the ocean. I think it's probably significantly easier to produce a Spongebob episode than an A:TLA episode. That said, I would've really liked a fourth season. I think a story arc revolving around Azula would've been nice. It's just a shame the writers were more focused on the movie than making that happen...

 

Which, by the way, I watched last night. It was about as bad as I expected. At first, I was like, "Why didn't they just make this a trilogy? There's too much material to shove in a 90-minute movie." It wasn't until about halfway through that I realized it was intended to be a trilogy. Man, the Ember Island play episode did a better job of summarizing the plot of the show, and that was only 20 minutes long (with SEVERAL intermissions). Forget a trilogy. The movie should've either been a prequel or a sequel to the show. I don't know whether to blame the writers, the actors, or the directing, but everything was off. It had none of the charm or the vision of the show. Their casting for Sokka and Iroh was particularly bad. So was how they mispronounced everybody's name.

 

Here's hoping the live action Netflix series is a step in the right direction.

 

13 hours ago, Darling Baphomet said:

PS Now is pretty good even if you don't want to stream PS3 games, imo. They have a good library of PS4 games, including Control for another month or two IIRC. If you can get it on sale it's really good. I live in Hawaii so the streaming itself can be iffy, but I may give it another try.

 

I used to think PS Now was good for PS3 games, but after trying it out, I think it's better served for downloading PS4 games to play. When I was boosting Castlevania: Harmony of Despair, I had two TVs side by side to see how they compared between the store-bought PS3 version and the streaming PS Now version. It was very obvious which was which. I think I would need a much better internet connection to use PS Now regularly.

 

9 hours ago, Xenoblast91 said:

Congratulation on that! Any tips for those sessions? I'm that game to for the Summer Challenge. Sound really straightforward, but wanna be prepared, LOL. 

 

Just join the boosting group that has over 120 members right now. You'll need a Discord account, but the people there are great and will explain everything to you. The key is to alternate wins, prioritize the people who have 100% risk missions, and always keep moving so you don't get booted from the server. If you want, you could even do the first few weeks without a boosting group, as your first 100% risk mission doesn't come until Week 6. Doesn't really matter if you win or lose matches. Just try to craft items and collect parts.

 

But if you're going to do it, now is the time. A lot of people are playing TLOU while they're waiting for the sequel to drop.

 

6 hours ago, Rune_Crys said:

Of course! I was just kidding. I wasn't trying to say that Mario games should have achievements. Achievement lists are what kill fun video gaming or weaken the experience. When I played Dragon Quest Builders 2 on the Switch, I did it because I loved the game, but when I did it on PS4, the first time, it was for trophies and therefore I didn't enjoy it as much. The only reason I stopped playing DQB2 on the Switch was because one part of the story lagged so heavily it was insane.

 

That's why I think if Nintendo ever came around to doing trophies, they'd be the one company to do them right. Sony has no standards. I'd be fine if every trophy in a Mario game was simply, "Beat World 1-1," "Beat World 1-2," "Beat World 1-3," etc. I'd rather do stuff like that than collect 100 piles of shit or pick my nose 20 times. But then you have games like Super Mario Odyssey and Breath of the Wild where the entire objective IS to collect shit (literally in the case of Zelda), so it's not like Nintendo isn't already trying to appeal to completionists.

 

But it's whatever. Nintendo is the only company that I've stuck with every generation, and the main reason for that is because the gap between them and the competition is much bigger than the gap between, say, Sony and Microsoft.

 

Anyway, got a little further in Persona 5 last night. I'm just going to call it Persona 5. You guys know I'm playing the Royal version. I'm...still not sure what's going on. I met a cat who isn't a cat and I'm going to a school that isn't a school. I was told I should use a spoiler-free guide so I can get the best ending on my first playthrough, but I don't really want to follow a walkthrough. I don't even know how I'd unlock different endings. The only choices in the game so far seem to be dialogue options, and I feel like most of the answers would lead to the same conclusion. You know, stuff like "I will stop you!" or "That's enough!"

 

Tonight, we continue!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Cassylvania said:

Anyway, got a little further in Persona 5 last night. I'm just going to call it Persona 5. You guys know I'm playing the Royal version. I'm...still not sure what's going on. I met a cat who isn't a cat and I'm going to a school that isn't a school. I was told I should use a spoiler-free guide so I can get the best ending on my first playthrough, but I don't really want to follow a walkthrough. I don't even know how I'd unlock different endings. The only choices in the game so far seem to be dialogue options, and I feel like most of the answers would lead to the same conclusion. You know, stuff like "I will stop you!" or "That's enough!"

 

Why not call it P5R? Anyway, I assume a guide is for later when you have more say in how to spend your time with what action, but you should be able to manage all of that without a guide.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Cassylvania said:

Breath of the Wild where the entire objective IS to collect shit (literally in the case of Zelda), so it's not like Nintendo isn't already trying to appeal to completionists.

 

Anyway, got a little further in Persona 5 last night. I'm just going to call it Persona 5. You guys know I'm playing the Royal version. I'm...still not sure what's going on. I met a cat who isn't a cat and I'm going to a school that isn't a school. I was told I should use a spoiler-free guide so I can get the best ending on my first playthrough, but I don't really want to follow a walkthrough. I don't even know how I'd unlock different endings. The only choices in the game so far seem to be dialogue options, and I feel like most of the answers would lead to the same conclusion. You know, stuff like "I will stop you!" or "That's enough!"

 

Tonight, we continue!

I mean, to be fair, breath of the wild kind of makes fun of you for collecting all the korok seeds.  😂😂.  Like I can't believe you did all that, here's some poop.

 

Not sure if P5R is effectively the same game as P5 which is what I'm playing right now, but they do try to explain it later... keep playing, game is great so far.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Xenoblast91 said:

The think that that has spread all the way to other media. Longer story arcs are only focused in movies and other media; for the children, I think that those inconnect stories have developed a bit of our psycology, to be honest. A:TLA is regarded one of the best exactly because of that: is short, because it allows a good cohesive, comprehensible plot which makes it rewatchable and allows new people to look for it. Also, its asian inspiration is notorious. Many of the media in Japan is based upon cultural and societal phenomena, and because the education there is harder because they want to keep a standar among its people, media explores those aspects. Here in the West, we rarely see something culturally rich in our TV shows. Part of this comes from our view about conquest of America during 16th century. Specially in my county, is really difficult to attach our culture to a show (in its deep, aborigeneal origins; shows here are piles of shit in its more purest form) because much of it is considered "lesser" or "unimportant" to the common viewer. The thought that native indigens  Also, growing up with a lot of US TV shows, formed a lot of what is considered "western".

 

You never bothered to respond back to me after I sent that video to you via PM. Did you watch it?

 

Back to topic, I was a huge fan of Dragonball Z. I basically watched all the episodes on Toonami on Cartoon Network, back when that station was good. Anime was always better at keeping a long and interesting story arc. Watched my share of Inuyasha, Big O, and several other anime shows.

 

Western cartoons to an extent have always infused a little bit of humor, even if that wasn't the main premise in Batman: The Animated Series and Gargoyles. Swat Kats: The Radical Squadron was another cartoon I enjoyed growing up, but every episode was basically a one story plot involving a villain trying to take over the world/city. The 1980s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon show defined a generation of kids, I was too young to really catch on to it until it's later years. As I grew older I came to accept that western cartoons and anime was like comparing apples to oranges, you can't make a proper comparison because they are two entirely different cultures.

 

Akira is still my favorite anime movie ever made.

 

Avatar: The Last Airbender was no doubt inspired by anime, the story arc was interesting and it took kids completely by surprise because it premiered on Nickelodeon. Nick was basically a station for witty, humerous cartoons that focused on comedy and teaching kids the values of life. Rugrats, Hey Arnold, Doug, Rocko's Modern Life, Ren & Stimpy, Rocket Power, Cat Dog, the list goes on. Nickelodeon was an awesome channel for kids. What it has today is a complete joke.

 

Cartoons were simply better in the 1980s and 1990s. A few from the 2000s were good, namely Avatar, Samurai Jack and a few others.

 

5 hours ago, Cassylvania said:

 

As much as I would love 20 seasons of A:TLA, I don't think the show could have kept its quality up for that long. Most shows seem to peak around season 4. Others don't seem to get good until then. A:TLA is unique in that it was really good from beginning to end (even if the first season is generally considered weaker than the others). Spongebob...I dunno. I liked the earlier episodes. But I also like anything related to the ocean. I think it's probably significantly easier to produce a Spongebob episode than an A:TLA episode. That said, I would've really liked a fourth season. I think a story arc revolving around Azula would've been nice. It's just a shame the writers were more focused on the movie than making that happen...

 

Which, by the way, I watched last night. It was about as bad as I expected. At first, I was like, "Why didn't they just make this a trilogy? There's too much material to shove in a 90-minute movie." It wasn't until about halfway through that I realized it was intended to be a trilogy. Man, the Ember Island play episode did a better job of summarizing the plot of the show, and that was only 20 minutes long (with SEVERAL intermissions). Forget a trilogy. The movie should've either been a prequel or a sequel to the show. I don't know whether to blame the writers, the actors, or the directing, but everything was off. It had none of the charm or the vision of the show. Their casting for Sokka and Iroh was particularly bad. So was how they mispronounced everybody's name.

 

Here's hoping the live action Netflix series is a step in the right direction.

 

I never said Avatar: TLA needed to be 20 seasons long. I simply said it deserved to get better treatment. Spongebob Squarepants practically sucked all the life out of Nickelodeon. Nobody today remembers Rugrats, Hey Arnold or Doug. But you mention Spongebob Squarepants to somebody in their 30s and they'll immediately know what you're talking about.

 

Spongebob was one of the last great cartoons to come out of the 1990s. The early episodes were good and memorable. But the Nickelodeon executives decided to milk the franchise because it was amongst the most popular shows out there for kids.

 

Avatar: TLA was a major shift from the norm, because Nickelodeon up to that point was primarily known for making witty humorous cartoon shows and sitcoms aimed at kids and young teenagers, like Drake & Josh. The Amanda Show was basically a kid version of Saturday Night Live, it was still fairly good. Mary Kate & Ashley could of made something like that had they had a career at Nickelodeon.

 

I give credit for Nickelodeon for giving Avatar a chance. But it definitely deserved at least 4 - 6 seasons.

 

It doesn't need 20 seasons. Just look at The Simpsons.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cassylvania said:

That's why I think if Nintendo ever came around to doing trophies, they'd be the one company to do them right. Sony has no standards.

I agree that Sony doesn't care about players much. Otherwise they would have put rules about how EZPZ a game's trophy list should be and really crappy titles like Little Adventure on the Prairie would have never have been published. I'm not trying to piss off Ratalaika, the games they distribute are hit and miss Sometimes they are hits(like Legend of the Skyfish, which is a great game and makes you beat the game to get all of the trophies, but it's not that difficult to grasp the concept) and some are misses(Foxyland series is annoyingly hard and I am glad you don't have to go past world two in those games).

 

7 hours ago, Cassylvania said:

I'd be fine if every trophy in a Mario game was simply, "Beat World 1-1," "Beat World 1-2," "Beat World 1-3," etc. I'd rather do stuff like that than collect 100 piles of shit or pick my nose 20 times. But then you have games like Super Mario Odyssey and Breath of the Wild where the entire objective IS to collect shit (literally in the case of Zelda), so it's not like Nintendo isn't already trying to appeal to completionists.

 

At first I was wondering about automatic trophies but then I remembered some of my favorite RPGs have those trophies. I'm going to take on DQB2 again and give a little lecture about tiers of trophies:

 

(1) Automatic trophies you can never avoid popping: These usually are hidden trophies because they spoil game plot as they are earned after completing parts of the story, and unless you just dick about at the very beginning forever, you will earn these trophies and can't avoid them. For example, you get a trophy for beating the tutorial section and clearing every part of the plot and then beating the final boss of the story. I think that's fine. It is the baseline for trophies and says "You're advancing the plot, well done!" *golf clap* As I said before, you have to have one of these or your game is not worth putting on the PS4 because players will just skip all of your triggers and miss every trophy. Some trophies are listed like miscellaneous trophies, but you will always earn them because it is impossible to avoid the triggers unless you use glitches or hacks to skip the plot. For example, you'll always get the Beginner Brickie trophy because you have to create a room to advance the plot in the beginning and that pops the trophy. Same with the Developing Decorator trophy - it pops if you create your first room recipe, and you'll automatically do that in Furrowfield near the beginning as you have to create a room recipe to advance the plot. The game doesn't tell you this but you won't be going to the next plot cutscene until you make that basic bedroom. :P

 

(2) Unmissable trophies that can be returned to. These are trophies you might miss the first time around but you aren't locked out of them. You may get annoyed that you could have earned the trophy earlier but you aren't forced to do another play for it. Usually most of the trophies on a list are in this category.

 

(3) Missable trophies you are locked out of if you miss the window. That means you have to restart the entire game and scour it with a fine-tooth comb and a guide. These trophies are probably the most annoying to earn because if you don't get it the first time, you can't go back and fix the situation. There are a lot of examples of this.

 

Games should avoid (3) like the plaque as forcing a player to redo a game just for padding because they missed one collectible at a spot they can't return to for the rest of the game is the worst buzzkill ever. The more times you are forcing a person to play your game, you had better damn well make sure that they do not have to slog through the story again(by giving players cutscene skips or fast-forward options and fast travel early) or your next game will lose sales. Nintendo avoids that - while Mario and Zelda games do have walls that require story advancement, they never force you to restart a game unless they give you NG+.

 

Cassy, let me say this: I don't like difficulty trophies or DLC trophies or online trophies, but the first hate is just my bias - I am not very good at adapting to difficult combat or situations. That's why I dropped Miles and Kilo after getting 48%, because some of those trophies were way too hard for me to do. But I know that people love challenging themselves. I just challenge myself in a different way. :S

 

I DO agree that pointless grindfest trophies need to be regulated. I can do "Get to Level 99" as the games I have those trophies have means of mitigating the grind. But if you force somebody to clean their toilet 1000 times, chances are you will get a revolt from me. I stopped bothering getting the moons in Super Mario Odyssey requiring you to get a 100-jump jump rope chain or keep a volleyball in the air 20 times. Jump King is the only reason I don't like FFIX. I played the non-trophy PS1 original and loved the story, but I do not ever see myself going for the Excaliber II - which requires you to do a 12-hour speedrun of the entire game. The fastest speedrun of FFIX is 9 hours plus. Don't believe me, go check out RPG Limit Break's videos.

7 hours ago, Cassylvania said:

Anyway, got a little further in Persona 5 last night. I'm just going to call it Persona 5. You guys know I'm playing the Royal version.

I would use P5R but whatever. Nobody platinums the original P5 anymore. xD

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rune_Crys said:

I would use P5R but whatever. Nobody platinums the original P5 anymore. xD

 

Cries in original :'( 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.