Video Games Thread

[jman]

Call me a fanboy if you want, but like I said, no brainer for me.

Yeah, your right, you are a fanboy.... for someone who confesses that DLC is more important to them... you must be well annoyed when the 360 gets 90% of timed exclusiveness of DLC packages... (of course the fanboy in you wont have that and spins it around to say that the 360 owners are just the "guinea pigs")

Just out of curiosity, if someone didnt game online (which is the major difference between the free and paid systems of PSN/XBL). which system would you recommend to them then... theres too much about PSN that I would find an absolute ballache.. some of which I touched on above.  PSN has improved massively since its inception, no doubt about that... so theres no longer a massive bridge between it and XBL... unfortunately its been badly designed which means that some of the stuff XBL does (cross game chat for instance) will never be able to be implemented on PSN.. and thats just life.

[Late]

I doubt there'll be many accusations of fanboyism toward me when I say Microsoft ain't got it sewn up like you think, Kieron.

Sure, they do some (most?) things much better than Sony with regard to their online services. For instance, it's hard to see how Sony don't have cross game chat. It's something Microsoft have done for what seems like forever. But if your hypothetical person doesn't do much online gaming would they get much use out of cross game chat? I'd say it's a feature mostly used by those folk who play online a lot and have friends online a lot - and if cross-game chat is something they'd either never use or would use very infrequently is it really a plus for him? It'll be easier for him to grab his mobile phone than to dig around for his headset, which he last used about a year ago...

There's a number of things Sony need to do to improve their online service and put it way ahead of Microsoft's. They're mainly little things.
Microsoft, on the other hand, only really have one thing wrong with their service - you can't play online multiplayer for free. Apart from that one thing their service is absolutely top notch.
That one thing is a very big one, though.


There's lots of great things about online-ness, but in my opinion the main two are:
Multiplayer. Sony offer that for free and Microsoft don't.
DLC. Usually comes to both, but Sony sometimes have to wait a month or so.


I might come across as a big advocate of Sony over Microsoft in the above. I'm not - I'm just countering the Microsoft argument.
To be honest I think they're about neck and neck - both have features the other really should have. Definitely ain't a no-brainer either way, as it's very easy for Microsoft fans to laugh at Sony's shortcomings and equally easy for Sony fans to laugh at Microsoft's failings...

[jman]

Well I say cross game chat... I could of used any of the essential things that PSN doesnt do...

I'd of thought the lack of being able to play with multiple accounts on one console would be a killer for you late... or for anyone that enjoys playing local multiplayer   That means.. you play a game under one account, all the other players have to play as a guest of your account, so they cant save their progress, data, nor get achievements or trophies... its not the end of the world for me.. but it would be a complete ballache not being able to do that... take Blops for example.. dont know if you've ever tried to play online with mutliple logged in local users... you wouldnt be able to do that on the PS3...

But stuff like this has been complained about since the inception of the PS3.. its stuff they cant fix because of the way the system has been designed... and they are not little things.. they are basic things... theres a whole host of them... I've said the gap between services is minimal now though, PSN used to be absolutely appalling...  but now there are advantages and disadvantages for both.. but if your talking free XBL vs free PSN.... i'd still rather have a top notch service without the online gaming (available at a small premium) than a 2nd rate service with online gaming as standard... but, like I said, if your after free games and free online gaming... PSN is probably the most cost-effective solution... ( although nothing beats pc online gaming  )

[Late]

Aye, not being able to log into more than one account would be frustrating (less-so now, as the kids aren't into gaming as much since they hit their teens and decided boys with stupidly scruffy hair are more interesting than COD and Sonic. But I digress - it's hard to imagine not having everyone log into their own account when playing...)

As I say, if MS let you play for free it'd be the complete package. But it's easy to see why they charge. People will pay - and it'd a bloody ridiculous business decision to give away for free something that you currently earn hundreds of millions a year from. (Guess based on around 15m paying subscribers, each paying around £30pa, which would come to around £450m per annum. No idea if 15m paying subscribers is about right, though.) You don't get rich by saying no to half a billion pounds a year.

[AVFCRoss]

Yeah, your right, you are a fanboy.... for someone who confesses that DLC is more important to them... you must be well annoyed when the 360 gets 90% of timed exclusiveness of DLC packages... (of course the fanboy in you wont have that and spins it around to say that the 360 owners are just the "guinea pigs")

Nope, I rarely buy day one DLC, and I'm more than happy to wait for the limited stuff...Although the Guinea pig argument works for me too, given the fact that 90% of it is also Bethesdas broken shit that later gets fixed for PS3 release... Even still, you don't get enough exclusive content for £40 a year, especially given the fact you still pay the same price for it.

Just out of curiosity, if someone didnt game online (which is the major difference between the free and paid systems of PSN/XBL). which system would you recommend to them then... theres too much about PSN that I would find an absolute ballache.. some of which I touched on above.  PSN has improved massively since its inception, no doubt about that... so theres no longer a massive bridge between it and XBL... unfortunately its been badly designed which means that some of the stuff XBL does (cross game chat for instance) will never be able to be implemented on PSN.. and thats just life.

What's hard to grasp about the PSN exactly? Also, if someone didn't game online, then what use would cross game chat be to them...?

I've never had an issue with the X-Media Bar, sure it has it down sides...Trophies don;t auto-sync, it can be a little bit sluggish to load sometimes, but nothing that gives me a niggling doubt I'd get a better service from Live for £40 a year...I can game online, I can see what my mates are doing, I can access Netflix, 4OD, iPlayer etc, I can see the store etc etc.

What does Live do differently from the PSN to justify the price tag? The spin that live is better is just an old age excuse for Xbox users to justify having to pay for it...They both have their upsides and downsides, just like anything in life would, but they all (more or less) have the same basic functions and products/services...It's just important to point out you can get alot of these without the Gold membership, but as soon as you want to go online, you have to fork out even more money for it.

Online gaming is becoming increasingly more important in this day and age, it's criminal for online gaming to still be charged for...Especially when you consider all of these services that you preach Live do better can be accessed with Silver membership anyway.

What if someone wanted to play online, but only played something like CoD or FIFA with mates every now and again? Is there no "pay as you play" alternative or anything, for people who just want to play online with mates at a long distance every once in a while? (I'm guessing not, given the fact you haven't renewed your gold membership...)

That in itself is a massive downside, imo...Not being able to play whenever you want unless you buy into a full years worth of subscription, even though you might just might want the odd FIFA/CoD/whatever session every now and again...It actually makes me realise how amazing it is to just whack my PS3 on, be automatically signed onto the PSN and just game online to my hearts content without even having to remotely think about any sort of costs.

[jman]

I dont pay anything for the privilege of exclusive DLC ross...    They are available to download for free and paying members, usually at the same time too... god how long did you wait for the exclusive GTA content... over a year wasnt it ??  I downloaded the first part on a deal way before it even appeared on PSN!! 

And considering theres only a handful of the 100s of games Ive owned that I have actually wanted to play online.. that setup suits me fine... I understand thats down to my personal preference... if I was "that" bothered about having to have free online gaming.. then prehaps I would look elsewhere... but a good proportion of games I have bought purely for online play, I bought on the pc anyway.. L4D, Battlefield, Conan, etc...so there is no need for me to look elsewhere.

And if your going to quote me, then at least answer the question... if someone didnt want to game online.. how is PSN any better than Live.. its not.. its significantly worse... heres a few major differences for you to gnaw over..

1).  Better DLC content/options
2).  Dont need to synch achievements manually
3).  Multi-profile Log-ins
4).  Notification context button - one press takes you straight to what you want.
5).  All features are as standard on live.. i.e. achievements in every game.
6).  Better developer support.. do I need to point you out how long Skyrim took to fix via PSN.

[harv]

Nothing to do with the design of PSN with regards to cross-game chat. It's a hardware issue due to the PS3 having a split pool of RAM combined with the SDK making memory allocation and deallocation a major pain in the arse. There simply aren't enough resources to have cross-game chat without a significant drop in performance.

Anyway, we're in the second decade of the second millennium, cross-game chat is soooooo last gen, man. It's all about cross-game video chat these days...although I doubt Nintendo will have that for the Nintendo Network due to them worrying about pervs waving their cocks at unsuspecting innocents lol

When Sony clone the GamePad for the PS4 expect them to implement it and for Microsoft to implement it with Kinect 2.0. Having a camera in the controller rather than having the camera on your telly would be a better solution imo, it's more old-school in terms of it being more of a video phone, it would be more personal imo.

[AVFCRoss]

1).  Better DLC content/options

In what regard? As far as I'm aware, we get the exact same DLC as you do for multi-platform titles...

2).  Dont need to synch achievements manually

I've already pointed that out as a PSN fault, it isn't exactly game breaking though...It takes about 5 seconds at a very maximum.

3).  Multi-profile Log-ins

You can actually do this with some games...Portal did it, and do does FIFA...It isn't an option that exists for everything, no, but I don't see how it's a huge negative though...Local co-op isn't the sort of thing you do regulary if you have mates with their own consoles and games.

4).  Notification context button - one press takes you straight to what you want.

Not sure what this means.

5).  All features are as standard on live.. i.e. achievements in every game.

Trophies haven't been around as long as achievements, but they've been mandatory in games in since Jan 2009, so that's largely irrelevant now.

6).  Better developer support.. do I need to point you out how long Skyrim took to fix via PSN

One example doesn't prove your point...Also, it's Bethesda, they've been shitting on the Playstation since time itself began...I wouldn't give two shits if they dropped off the face of the earth tomorrow, their games aren't good enough for me to care if they stopped developing on the PS...Even still, that's equalised by the fact the Playstation first party titles are much superior to the Xbox these day...Especially with All Star Battle Royale, LBP Karting and The Last of Us coming out soon as new first party IP's.

[harv]

I'm pretty sure trophies have been mandatory since 2008, not 2009, but otherwise everything that he said ^^

Another GIF from the ZombiU Developer Diary part 2:



This one is definitely in-game. The lighting, scale and level of detail is very impressive, it's really starting to look like a next gen title now. I can see it being the Condemned equivalent of the 360 launch. Full Developer Diary Part 2 can be found here. Gives a little background on the story, I quite like games, telly programmes and films based on real life people.

Just in case Dr Dee was right I'm going to buy myself a cricket bat and stock up on tinned food lol

[stupac]

Let's be serious here.

The Wii is the best...

[jman]

In what regard? As far as I'm aware, we get the exact same DLC as you do for multi-platform titles...

Like I said, exclusive timed DLC, I dont pay any money towards XBL at the moment and still have access to it earlier than PS3 users - still no Dawnguard I see   

You can actually do this with some games...Portal did it, and do does FIFA...It isn't an option that exists for everything, no, but I don't see how it's a huge negative though...Local co-op isn't the sort of thing you do regulary if you have mates with their own consoles and games.

Its stupid of sony to make the feature game specific though.. local co-op isn't just between mates either.. how about families who have one family console - like I said, not the end of the world for me, but a pain in the arse as I sometimes play games with my girlfriend, mates and family and have profiles on my console for each of them.

Not sure what this means.

It means, as soon as I get a message pop up, or a game invite, or an achievement pop.. or whatever sort of notification pops up on the screen, I can go to the specific screen with one button press on the controller.. as far as Im aware, PS3 users have to piss around and navigate to that stuff themselves...just another userability irritant.

Trophies haven't been around as long as achievements, but they've been mandatory in games in since Jan 2009, so that's largely irrelevant now.

Sounds worse when you say 2 years worth of games without trophies though.. and any patched ones required a whole game replay.  Suprised it took sony 3 years to realise that a gamerscore was important.

One example doesn't prove your point...Also, it's Bethesda, they've been shitting on the Playstation since time itself began...I wouldn't give two shits if they dropped off the face of the earth tomorrow, their games aren't good enough for me to care if they stopped developing on the PS...Even still, that's equalised by the fact the Playstation first party titles are much superior to the Xbox these day...Especially with All Star Battle Royale, LBP Karting and The Last of Us coming out soon as new first party IP's.

Plenty of examples, valve, activision, bethesda, rockstar.. all favoured XBL over PSN in the past or currently - and you dont get too much bigger than those developers.. Im quite happy with Halo 4, new Gears of War and possibly XCom all coming out soon... the first two games you listed sound like rip offs of SSBB and Mario Kart.. lol.. you have fun with that.

[jman]

Bloody hell, didnt realise Resident Evil 6 was that bad.. its got terrible reviews so far.. averaging 66 on metacritic!!!   

[harv]

Yup, and it's quite a surprise too. Capcom took a step in the right direction with Revelations, although there was still a little too much emphasis on action rather than survival horror for my liking. But I just assumed that Resident Evil 6 was going to follow suit. A daft decision imo.

A bit sad that a new IP from Ubisoft is going to be more 'Resident Evil' than the last 3 Resident Evils tbh.

Resident Evil used to be about scares, used to be about facing insurmountable odds with bugger all ammo meaning you had to make every shot count. The Resident Evil franchise started to die with Resident Evil 4 imo.

[AVFCRoss]

Like I said, exclusive timed DLC, I dont pay any money towards XBL at the moment and still have access to it earlier than PS3 users - still no Dawnguard I see   

As previously mentioned, I couldn't care less about Skyrim, or Bethesda for that matter...The only DLC I wish we ever had earlier was the GTA4 DLC, hardly enough to justify the extra £40 though, at which point I picked up the disc collection for way less than that anyway...

Its stupid of sony to make the feature game specific though.. local co-op isn't just between mates either.. how about families who have one family console - like I said, not the end of the world for me, but a pain in the arse as I sometimes play games with my girlfriend, mates and family and have profiles on my console for each of them.

Maybe, but then again, I never play local co-op, and I'd be willing to bet the vast majority don't either...It's a pretty insignificant complaint given the fact that alot of games simply aren't suited to local co-op anyway these days...Have you tried to play any split-screen shooter recently? It's horrible.

It means, as soon as I get a message pop up, or a game invite, or an achievement pop.. or whatever sort of notification pops up on the screen, I can go to the specific screen with one button press on the controller.. as far as Im aware, PS3 users have to piss around and navigate to that stuff themselves...just another userability irritant.

The only notifcations you get on the PS3 is when someone comes online/goes offline or whenever a trophy pops...1 click of the PS3 button on the controller instantly brings up your friends list, and if you want to see the trophy you just unlocked, you just move over to the trophy collection and it's displayed at the top...Hardly what I'd call "userability irritant".

Sounds worse when you say 2 years worth of games without trophies though.. and any patched ones required a whole game replay.  Suprised it took sony 3 years to realise that a gamerscore was important.

Patched games didn't always require a whole replay, there were some retroactive games too, but we're talking about now, trophies have been mandatory for almost 4 years (They were introduced in July 2008, Harv, but only made mandatory by Sony in January 2009 ) and they feature in over 1000 games as of writing...Hardly a legitimate argument against them anymore.

Plenty of examples, valve, activision, bethesda, rockstar.. all favoured XBL over PSN in the past or currently - and you dont get too much bigger than those developers.. Im quite happy with Halo 4, new Gears of War and possibly XCom all coming out soon... the first two games you listed sound like rip offs of SSBB and Mario Kart.. lol.. you have fun with that.

They haven't favoured XBL at all...They've been bought out by Microsoft to provide exclusive content or premium content...Aside maybe Valve, but their hatred towards the Playstation isn't exactly a best kept secret, is it?

And of course, those are just new IP's shortly coming out...Playstation still has Uncharted, Resistance, Killzone, Motorstorm, LittleBig Planet, Gran Turismo, Twisted Metal, Heavy Rain, God of War, Infamous, Ratchet and Clank, Metal Gear Solid (I'm sure theres a few I've missed out too)...All critically acclaimed AAA titles that Sony will no doubt keep revisiting at some point because they're such top quality titles...On top of those 3 I mentioned, the old "PS3 has no good games" argument is well and truly dead in the water....and I can play them all online to my hearts content 

[harv]

I have to agree with Ross regarding exclusives, nowhere near as much commercial value as Nintendo's first party exclusives but they piss all over those available to Microsoft...although Microsoft do have the disadvantage of being relative n00bs to gaming.

And the trophy system, for me personally, is more addictive than the achievement system thanks to it being level-based rather than score-based. If Nintendo have an ounce of sense, given the popularity of RPGs in Japan especially, they'll adopt a similar level-based system for accomplishments.

We also have no clue what they're going to do with Friend Codes either, a while back Reggie said we'd see Friend Codes for the Nintendo Network but we've seen OctoG123 as a username in the very first trailer for the U and we've seen Friends having usernames in demos of ZombiU too. Perhaps they've decided that Friend Codes will be user-defined alphanumeric codes..? If so then it would make more sense to ditch the negative connotations with the name 'Friend Code' and call them Nintendo Network Usernames instead. Very odd imo