remember_spinal
Banned
MLBThe variety is there, you just ignore it. GT7, Ratchet and Clank, Demon's Souls, Dreams, Returnal, Spiderman. All PS3 like variety you choose to ignore for a narrative.
MLBThe variety is there, you just ignore it. GT7, Ratchet and Clank, Demon's Souls, Dreams, Returnal, Spiderman. All PS3 like variety you choose to ignore for a narrative.
The variety is there, you just ignore it. GT7, Ratchet and Clank, Demon's Souls, Dreams, Returnal, Spiderman. All PS3 like variety you choose to ignore for a narrative.
Were you trying to prove a point? With the exception of GT7 and Dreams, which is pretty niche... all are third person adventures! More variety is needed, more risks must be taken. They got the talent, they got the money.The variety is there, you just ignore it. GT7, Ratchet and Clank, Demon's Souls, Dreams, Returnal, Spiderman. All PS3 like variety you choose to ignore for a narrative.
GT7 is good, but hampered by GAAS Design and always online (which has zero reason to exist).
Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart is the most soulless entry, lacks pretty much any side content or memorable/fun moments, and only has its graphical fidelity to go off of.
Demon Souls is a remake of a PS3 game. A great one, but still a remake.
Dreams is a cool creation tool, but without anything worth while to play aside from very bite sized "experiences", there isn't much here to celebrate or care about. The vast majority of what has been created is trash.
Returnal is fantastic and I want a sequel. now.
Spider-Man is a generic open world game whose only claim to fame is the webslinging, which feels great. Everything else is beyond cookie cutter and would have been criticized if it wasn't Spider-Man.
There is "variety", but most of these games are medicore, at best. The handful of legitimately great games are either ones I have already played (Demon Souls), are hampered by dipshit designs (GT7), or are Returnal.
Still waiting on a reason to be excited for PS5. So far I haven't had much of anything. Asides from Returnal and Astrobot (and soon to be PSVR2, once I get that), most of what they have been working on is the same been there, done that design that they have been doing for 15+ years now. It is getting *real* old.
If you think Returnal and Spiderman are the same because they're "third person adventures" then knock yourself out, doesn't bother me.Were you trying to prove a point? With the exception of GT7 and Dreams, which is pretty niche... all are third person adventures! More variety is needed, more risks must be taken. They got the talent, they got the money.
Sounds like your opinion doesn’t really jive with critics, you’re basically hand waiving away a lot of great games for pretty false reasons
Sounds like your opinion doesn’t really jive with critics, you’re basically hand waiving away a lot of great games for pretty false reasons
Good ignore candidate
Don't mean to take this out on you personally, but just kind of a pet peeve of mine when I see this type of comment.I just wish they had some variety to their genres. Sony is amazing at making single player cinematic third person action adventure games but I miss Resistance, Twisted Metal and Killzone. If you dont like single player cinematic games, playstation is not very appealing.
Nothing I have stated is false. Try again.
And as I have stated before in regard to "critics" - only warriors and children who need validation for their purchases uses them as any barometer/metric.
This comment sounds hilarious when you break it down.
Playing a game in a gritty
Zombie apocalypse , then moving into a game based on Norse mythology, and finally a futuristic post apocalyptic robo Dino world
All very samey for sure, lmao
Frankly, there's less than no reason to assume that any of those titles will be hitting the threshold of quality that we're talking about here. The BGS titles especially. Starfield looks visually unpolished and bland, and the gameplay is embarassing to watch. Fable is coming from a studio that has no experience beyond racing games. And as much as people dance around it, racing games do demand less from development studios than large scale action-adventure titles, and is probably the most "figured-out" genre in gaming.Are we just pretending that Fable, Starfield, and Elder Scrolls VI aren't going to happen? Or are those not "AAAAAA" enough titles?
Well that's not the claim. The claim is that Sony's best tends to be better the vast majority of other studios/publishers'. And when are we allowed to say that? Microsoft wasn't "console warring" by acknowledging that they had nothing either out or in the works that comes close to TLOU2, a PS4 game that released when most of their next gen titles were in development if not publicly announced.I love the quality of Sony's first-party games as much as the next SonyGAF member. I just don't like these console warring threads (because let's be real, that's what this thread is) that are thinly-veiled digs at Microsoft/Xbox. Acting like Sony is the only one who can or is making great looking games is silly.
Ultimately, what someone considers "cinematic" is subjective.Don't mean to take this out on you personally, but just kind of a pet peeve of mine when I see this type of comment.
I will NEVER get this argument. Wtf is meant by "cinematic" anyway. Why shouldn't games have a compelling story and why is that a negative. Don't get me wrong, a game doesn't need to have that to be good but it's such a weird pointless criticism. It's like arguing " oh this studio or developer only makes games with good graphics." Why tf shouldn't we want that as gamers! Again it's not a prerequisite that a game needs a good story or graphics to be great but it's just an argument that holds no weight. It's just adding more value to the game.
Even if you look at the most recent exclusive games from Sony, they play NOTHING alike. GoW, to GT7, to Horizon, to Returnal, to spider man MM. They all play different and have a unique feel to them. It would be like arguing all Xbox games are samey because they only make sci Fi shooters in gears, halo and now starfield (which is also total nonsense).
I said it so I clearly care about it? As did many others if you use the simple search function and browse reddit and twitter. These *are* negatives for people, even if they aren't for you. Scary thought, people having different priorities and opinions. I know. But you should learn to understand these, kiddo.GT7 always online and GaaS - does anyone truly care about this? Seems like a talking point rather than an actual negative that somehow prevents it from being a great game
'K? Still my opinion. I felt completely disinterested in everything going on. It felt like the most generic and boring game out of the entire franchise. Doesn't have the same sharp wit and comedy as the early games, nor the heart or emotion of the PS3 games. Felt like it was rushed out the door to be a little tech demo and to occupy a slot in the release schedule. I felt absolutely nothing for Female Rachet (Rivet) or Female Clank (Kit).Ratchet is soulless? Really? You’re the only one I’ve heard make this claim, it had a ton of soul and Rivet was a great addition.
The combat feels like every other arkham-style game and nothing in it made me feel like I am in an interactive movie. Swinging around the world *is* fun, yes. But when there isn't anything worth DOING in that world, it defeats the entire purpose. Hell, Spider-Man 2 on the PS2 had a more interesting and engaging open world than what we have here.Spider-Man is a generic open world…uhm, ok. It also happens to have fantastic combat gameplay that makes you feel like you’re in an interactive movie. The world isn’t meant to be anything deep and that’s not really a con, it’s used as a means of using the fantastic web slinging you admitted too
It's called an opinion, you twit. No where am I making a declaration that these are objective facts. This is blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't a mindless warrior so up in arms that someone dared say something critical about their favorite plastic box.Saying these games are “mediocre at best” isn’t substantiated at all, and no you don’t need to be a warrior or a child to rip through your baseless and superficial claims
Ultimately, what someone considers "cinematic" is subjective.
We have had games with compelling stories for decades and they are not "cinematic". From games like PlaneScape: Torment, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, Ultima IV to more recent games such as To The Moon, Pentiment, Final Fantasy IX. To me "Cinematic" does not equate to compelling stories. It equates to a style of game that is filled with slow walking, "walk and talk" segments, to having heavily scripted moments that are little more than glorified QTEs. It is taking away player agency for prolonged periods. Sometimes this can be done well, like with MGS4 or God of War 2018. Other times it feels frustrating and heavy handed, like with God of War Ragnarok and TLOU.
So, for me, "Cinematic" is shorthand for something that is more style than substance. Something that apes and emulates another form of media (TV/Movies) and utterly fails to understand taking advantage of its own medium. To you, it may mean something entirely different. If you enjoy those kinds of games, then more power to you! Hope you continue to enjoy them and see something of worth in these upcoming titles. Personally, I have grown sick of them and want something different.
I said it so I clearly care about it? As did many others if you use the simple search function and browse reddit and twitter. These *are* negatives for people, even if they aren't for you. Scary thought, people having different priorities and opinions. I know. But you should learn to understand these, kiddo.
'K? Still my opinion. I felt completely disinterested in everything going on. It felt like the most generic and boring game out of the entire franchise. Doesn't have the same sharp wit and comedy as the early games, nor the heart or emotion of the PS3 games. Felt like it was rushed out the door to be a little tech demo and to occupy a slot in the release schedule. I felt absolutely nothing for Female Rachet (Rivet) or Female Clank (Kit).
The combat feels like every other arkham-style game and nothing in it made me feel like I am in an interactive movie. Swinging around the world *is* fun, yes. But when there isn't anything worth DOING in that world, it defeats the entire purpose. Hell, Spider-Man 2 on the PS2 had a more interesting and engaging open world than what we have here.
This was also a big issue for many, and the developers have stated they are working to remedy that, to make the world feel more alive and engaging with the sequel. We shall see if they actually do that.
It's called an opinion, you twit. No where am I making a declaration that these are objective facts. This is blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't a mindless warrior so up in arms that someone dared say something critical about their favorite plastic box.
The difference is the logo on the box. WB (Batman, Hogwarts, Mordor), Rockstar, Ubi, 2k (Mafia), Square (Just cause, Avengers, GOTG) don't get the same criticism even if they have similar games.Don't mean to take this out on you personally, but just kind of a pet peeve of mine when I see this type of comment.
I will NEVER get this argument. Wtf is meant by "cinematic" anyway. Why shouldn't games have a compelling story and why is that a negative.
Ok, so to summarize your position
And my response
Sorry, but objectively MOST rational people would not call Spider-Man, GT7, Ratchet, etc “average at best games”. You don’t have to love them but they certainly are well above average, and I have meta/sales to back my position up. You just have a terrible singular opinion
nothing really impressive has come out for current gen only outside of Demon’s Souls
The issue with Hellblade is that the first game was nowhere near Sony quality, it wasn’t even close to A Plague Tale. It’s second-rate.I think its obviously a strength of theirs. But some variety couldn't hurt. Sony does multiple series that could fit in this similar style.
I'm fine with Xbox trying just 1 series like this, in Hellblade. I honestly hope they stop there and keep doing a wide variety of varied styles and genres.
I was under the impression that scope and budget were factors in aaa game labeling, not just teh gwaphix.Starfield does not look current gen, sorry. Hellblade 2 is what im waiting for on xbox to blow us away
Personally I don't see how pressing A to read some text is more substance over style but that's just me.Ultimately, what someone considers "cinematic" is subjective.
We have had games with compelling stories for decades and they are not "cinematic". From games like PlaneScape: Torment, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, Ultima IV to more recent games such as To The Moon, Pentiment, Final Fantasy IX. To me "Cinematic" does not equate to compelling stories. It equates to a style of game that is filled with slow walking, "walk and talk" segments, to having heavily scripted moments that are little more than glorified QTEs. It is taking away player agency for prolonged periods. Sometimes this can be done well, like with MGS4 or God of War 2018. Other times it feels frustrating and heavy handed, like with God of War Ragnarok and TLOU.
So, for me, "Cinematic" is shorthand for something that is more style than substance. Something that apes and emulates another form of media (TV/Movies) and utterly fails to understand taking advantage of its own medium. To you, it may mean something entirely different. If you enjoy those kinds of games, then more power to you! Hope you continue to enjoy them and see something of worth in these upcoming titles. Personally, I have grown sick of them and want something different.
I said it so I clearly care about it? As did many others if you use the simple search function and browse reddit and twitter. These *are* negatives for people, even if they aren't for you. Scary thought, people having different priorities and opinions. I know. But you should learn to understand these, kiddo.
'K? Still my opinion. I felt completely disinterested in everything going on. It felt like the most generic and boring game out of the entire franchise. Doesn't have the same sharp wit and comedy as the early games, nor the heart or emotion of the PS3 games. Felt like it was rushed out the door to be a little tech demo and to occupy a slot in the release schedule. I felt absolutely nothing for Female Rachet (Rivet) or Female Clank (Kit).
The combat feels like every other arkham-style game and nothing in it made me feel like I am in an interactive movie. Swinging around the world *is* fun, yes. But when there isn't anything worth DOING in that world, it defeats the entire purpose. Hell, Spider-Man 2 on the PS2 had a more interesting and engaging open world than what we have here.
This was also a big issue for many, and the developers have stated they are working to remedy that, to make the world feel more alive and engaging with the sequel. We shall see if they actually do that.
It's called an opinion, you twit. No where am I making a declaration that these are objective facts. This is blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't a mindless warrior so up in arms that someone dared say something critical about their favorite plastic box.
I'd say it depends on whats written in that text.Personally I don't see how pressing A to read some text is more substance over style but that's just me.
Absolutely but that doesn't seem to be what the point of contention isI'd say it depends on whats written in that text.
You still have agency with text. Going up to a character and talking to him is a mechanic that emulates conversation, which can be essential in many rpgs. Doesn't even have to be just text necessarelyAbsolutely but that doesn't seem to be what the point of contention is
"It is taking away player agency for prolonged periods."
"Something that apes and emulates another form of media (TV/Movies) and utterly fails to understand taking advantage of its own medium."
Personally I don't see what's more compelling or increased "player agency" about waking up to some dude and having to continously press A to read some text vs some small section where you're walking and the characters talk.
For my money, Plague Tale Requiem is flat out a better game than Forbidden West.
It's literally just as pretty (but with a more natural color pallette/no blatant over-saturation), has a better story, has characters you can actually care about and they're going through more drama with higher stakes (no spoilers).
The game probably costed half the budget of Forbidden West to develop, as well.
I'd say there are other offenders aside from Sony games. RDR2 is a particularly bad case, probably worse. The Witcher 3 not so much, as it more or less fits into what i explained in my previous post. Theres also the issue of how pervasive and how frequent these cinematic elements are in the overall game.The Sony cinematic game has become a bit of a meme at this point.
Saying that can someone please explain to me how they are different, worse, whatever than other mainstream story driven single player games like red dead, witcher 3, dead space, Hogwarts legacy, resident evil etc etc
Hey how are they that different from ps1 story games like final fantasy and metal gear? What's more offensive whats worse about these games that was fine in those games?
Thanks
Not sure soulless is the word I would use but it's definitely an entirely forgettable experience. I completed it and Psychonauts 2 around the same time and I can't for the life of me remember pretty much anything about its characters, story and conflicts and yet I remember Psychonauts as if I played it last week. It's a solid 6/10 maybe 7/10 game.Ratchet is soulless? Really? You’re the only one I’ve heard make this claim, it had a ton of soul and Rivet was a great addition.
You still have agency with text. Going up to a character and talking to him is a mechanic that emulates conversation, which can be essential in many rpgs. Doesn't even have to be just text necessarely
In comparison, take a moment like this in TLoU, where player control is arbitrarily removed for the sake of creating a "movie-like" moment
The main difference is one is designed as an essential, recurring and consistent mechanic. The other is random, unpredictable and completely subjected to the developer's whim.
You still have agency with text. Going up to a character and talking to him is a mechanic that emulates conversation, which can be essential in many rpgs. Doesn't even have to be just text necessarely
In comparison, take a moment like this in TLoU, where player control is arbitrarily removed for the sake of creating a "movie-like" moment
The main difference is one is designed as an essential, recurring and consistent mechanic. The other is random, unpredictable and completely subjected to the developer's whim.
Right, plus, don't forget, it was on game pass day 1 - the best deal in gaming and everything.
....
Requiem biggest fault was that it actually tried to copy/emulate the "Sony formula" and it was all the worse for doing so.
See, when you try to follow that formula you have to have an actual budget, something which Requiem didn't have obviously and it showed in the brain dead AI, lackluster/mediocre animations, below than average gameplay/systems, absolutely horrid and overly dramatic (English) voice acting (that goddamn constant whining from Amicia and Hugo), bad writing and BOMBASTICCCC set-pieces which... weren't "bombastic" at all since , again, you have to actually have a big budget and a good script/writing (i.e , people doing their job well) as to have those moments "hit hard".
Requiem felt like those Russian/French movies trying to replicate Hollywood ones and IMO, it really showed.
That liquid fire cannon /cart sequence (not gonna say anything else) is where i literally said "wtf is this shit", it didn't feel "cool", it didn't feel "dramatic", it was just put there as to have a BiiiiiIiigGgg set-piece with the devs most prolly thinking "see all this cool shit ? We can do it too ! wink*wink).
Compared to the 1st one it felt like going through the motions , in fact, the 1st game is so much better than the 2nd one since it feels like a honest/ "more sincere" as a game generally speaking even though it's smaller in scope.
The only thing requiem has going for it is the art-direction and music which are both very good, other than that it felt like the typical (but lower budget) "Sony movie game" that peeps like to shit on which wasn't exclusive to a PS console .
An absolute disappointment of a sequel, this shit needed to feel more grounded, not the opposite.
Not a "bad" game by any means, just mediocre.
Not sure soulless is the word I would use but it's definitely an entirely forgettable experience. I completed it and Psychonauts 2 around the same time and I can't for the life of me remember pretty much anything about its characters, story and conflicts and yet I remember Psychonauts as if I played it last week. It's a solid 6/10 maybe 7/10 game.
If there is too much walk + talk + cutscenes i will cancel them all or even the whole game. I just want to play.I like playing games not watching them.
Spider-Man is a generic open world game whose only claim to fame is the webslinging, which feels great. Everything else is beyond cookie cutter and would have been criticized if it wasn't Spider-Man.
Meanwhile people in Flight Sim are literally flying with 27000km/h around laser scanned 1:1 Earth replica with realtime weather.
This is the main problem with this thread and topic overall: The truth does not win. People don't look where they should. They look at marketed fancy animations and cinematics.
For my money, Plague Tale Requiem is flat out a better game than Forbidden West.
It's literally just as pretty (but with a more natural color pallette/no blatant over-saturation), has a better story, has characters you can actually care about and they're going through more drama with higher stakes (no spoilers).
The game probably costed half the budget of Forbidden West to develop, as well.