Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kaje]

Firstly, if you believe the Elder Scrolls Online will be good, then you're the target audience for the Xbox One. Congratulations.

The Elder Scrolls Online will very quickly go the way of The Old Republic - it's a single player game that should always have STAYED a single player game, and people will very quickly realise that when they notice there are a LOT of twats running around spoiling their enjoyment.

The biggest thing that annoys me in modern gaming is that everything has to have a bloody multiplayer component, to the extent companies will rape fantastic single player franchises just to inseminate them with one.

Grrr.

[miauw62]

Krevsin, just take a pen to the lens of it if you don't want it, or duck tape over it.

BUT WHAT IF IT SHOOTS LASERS?

If the kinect shoots lasers, I think that's one more reason FOR buying an Xbone


pew pew pew

[Bdthemag]

Firstly, if you believe the Elder Scrolls Online will be good, then you're the target audience for the Xbox One. Congratulations.

The Elder Scrolls Online will very quickly go the way of The Old Republic - it's a single player game that should always have STAYED a single player game, and people will very quickly realise that when they notice there are a LOT of twats running around spoiling their enjoyment.

The biggest thing that annoys me in modern gaming is that everything has to have a bloody multiplayer component, to the extent companies will rape fantastic single player franchises just to inseminate them with one.

Grrr.

Fun fact, the Elder Scrolls Online is going to be using the same engine The Old Republic did, albeit a more finished version. Interpret that as you will.

[Kaje]

That makes sense.

RIP The Elder Scrolls - 1994-2012

[kingfisher1112]

Meh. I'm staying out of this console generation. Wii U is needless gimmick with no games, PS4 is Facebook: The Console, and Xbox One is Big Brother. I'll stick to PC. Probably.

[Bdthemag]

There's really no reason to not go PC nowadays. Shell out the money for one, and learn how to build it. Want something similar to console gaming, where you sit on a couch with a controller? Install steam so you can use the big picture mode. You have cheaper games, a wide game library including new and old games, free online play, etc.

I mean, the only reason to get a console is for the potential exclusives nowadays. But I don't envision any interest exclusives, besides a few random gems of course. Hell, even MGS 5 has a solid chance of being ported to PC.

[Kaje]

I will buy a PS4, and I'll play it a load, but for me gaming will always be better on a PC. I have my gaming laptop, which will last me a while longer. The PS4 will carry me through until I graduate and earn some money, and then I'll buy another gaming laptop to carry on with more up-to-date PC gaming.

[Aklyon]

The consoles are being more pc-like as it is anyway, they're actually using some form of x86 in the hardware this time.

[GlyphGryph]

The biggest thing that annoys me in modern gaming is that everything has to have a bloody multiplayer component, to the extent companies will rape fantastic single player franchises just to inseminate them with one.

Couldn't disagree more. There is almost no game that isn't made better with a strong multiplayer component. The problem, of course, that a strong multiplayer component is both /hard/ (and there are lots appealing traps that turn out to be poor decisions during the design process) and an investment few companies are willing to make unless the game is /dedicated/ to it, and that sucks.

Secret of Mana was a better game for it's multiplayer component - So was the original Baldur's Gate. That these were single-player franchises did nothing to take away from the fact that they were great multiplayer experiences, from the get go! Portal certainly showed how awesome good multiplayer is when added to a single-player game. All of these, every one, are better for the addition of multiplayer.

But that's because the multiplayer worked with what the game was offering. You CAN do a multiplayer version by changing the game and still get something good out of it - See: Fallout Online - but it's hard, and many companies seem to be really, really bad at it.

The problem is not the addition of multiplayer, it is the addition of BAD multiplayer.

[Remuthra]

Personally I was pretty disappointed with the newest generation. If I do end up getting one of the new consoles, though, it would be the PS4 simply because I would want to try out Bungie's new game.

[Mech#4]

The biggest thing that annoys me in modern gaming is that everything has to have a bloody multiplayer component, to the extent companies will rape fantastic single player franchises just to inseminate them with one.

Couldn't disagree more. There is almost no game that isn't made better with a strong multiplayer component. The problem, of course, that a strong multiplayer component is both /hard/ (and there are lots appealing traps that turn out to be poor decisions during the design process) and an investment few companies are willing to make unless the game is /dedicated/ to it, and that sucks.

Secret of Mana was a better game for it's multiplayer component - So was the original Baldur's Gate. That these were single-player franchises did nothing to take away from the fact that they were great multiplayer experiences, from the get go! Portal certainly showed how awesome good multiplayer is when added to a single-player game. All of these, every one, are better for the addition of multiplayer.

But that's because the multiplayer worked with what the game was offering. You CAN do a multiplayer version by changing the game and still get something good out of it - See: Fallout Online - but it's hard, and many companies seem to be really, really bad at it.

The problem is not the addition of multiplayer, it is the addition of BAD multiplayer.

I guess in part you could extend that to: well, if the multiplayers going to be bad because it's not the main focus of the game, why spend the time on it in the first place?

But, that's usually with the benefit of a lot of hindsight, as well as no publishers asking for multiplayer components.

[Kaje]

The biggest thing that annoys me in modern gaming is that everything has to have a bloody multiplayer component, to the extent companies will rape fantastic single player franchises just to inseminate them with one.

Couldn't disagree more. There is almost no game that isn't made better with a strong multiplayer component. The problem, of course, that a strong multiplayer component is both /hard/ (and there are lots appealing traps that turn out to be poor decisions during the design process) and an investment few companies are willing to make unless the game is /dedicated/ to it, and that sucks.

Secret of Mana was a better game for it's multiplayer component - So was the original Baldur's Gate. That these were single-player franchises did nothing to take away from the fact that they were great multiplayer experiences, from the get go! Portal certainly showed how awesome good multiplayer is when added to a single-player game. All of these, every one, are better for the addition of multiplayer.

But that's because the multiplayer worked with what the game was offering. You CAN do a multiplayer version by changing the game and still get something good out of it - See: Fallout Online - but it's hard, and many companies seem to be really, really bad at it.

The problem is not the addition of multiplayer, it is the addition of BAD multiplayer.

Unlike Bdthemag, let me drop a quick apology in first - I'm just as blunt.

I completely skipped over this (a touch of the tl;dr I'm afraid) but I'll pop a quick reply.

*I* don't like multiplayer in single player games. *I* think it hurts the experience of single player games when a multiplayer component gets shoehorned in, it takes time away from further development of single player components.

Secret of Mana was NOT a better game for it's multiplayer, neither was Baldurs Gate. I could count on one hand the minutes I was torn away from the single player experience by the multiplayer. I'd probably just need two fingers.

And you use Fallout Online as an example. I would number it's users in the hundreds.

All this is 'in my humble opinion' of course, but I'm yet to be convinced by the multiplayer component of a single player game.

[Aklyon]

The Pikmin 2 multiplayer was pretty neat. But that wasn't online, so does it still count?

[alexandertnt]

colourful fun games? Yeah, here, have one or two, while we spend most of our money on BROWNGRAYGRITTY

Unreal Engine 4 is supposed to have real time global illumination (And the general reason everything is brown and grey is to cover up the fact that real time computer graphics handle lighting poorly). If other engines do something like this as well, there just might be more colourful games...

[Bdthemag]

"Heartbroken Xbox One employee lets rip."

So yeah, basically Microsoft thinks used games are killing the industry. The employee states that although developers never told them that used games were a problem, they could tell they thought so even though they never brought it up in the first place. The more noteworthy part of the article, however is a tidbit of information regarding their previously planned family sharing plan. Guess what? It would of been a 15-45 minute demo, which would then direct the person playing it to the marketplace to buy it.

So yeah, so much for that revolutionary sharing plan.