Topic: The PlayStation Fan Thread

@Tsurii (insert Zoidberg meme.)

@Ryu_Niiyama While I'm guilty for aiding it by buying deluxe, perhaps it should get a lower score for being main game content obviously ripped out of the game to sell separately?

@Nestalgia - Oh, to be fair, I get that it's a western and not done frequently, but I just...don't care. I don't want to explore an environment that exists on Earth without adding something substantially imaginative to it. I mean, westerns themselves aren't very historic - most of those Hollywood cowboy movies were based on a Wild West that just...didn't exist. I loved reading about the differences and learning about the extremely few exceptions, some of which Hollywood idolized, but I don't actually find the setting interesting. I can read a history book or watch a documentary if I want to learn about history, and I do find that enjoyable since it's an enriching experience - I learn something that applies to the real world. But there's nothing enriching about an approximation of a real-world setting that heavily glosses over important parts of the history based entirely on misinformed tropes. In fact, most games that emphasize realism have to take a lot of concessions in order to make their games enjoyable, so in my opinion, they're on a fool's errand - we're always just left with an unimaginative fantasy, and I'm going to judge it accordingly.

No it shouldn't, because the reviewer needs to judge the content based on its own merits, informed by his opinion of the base game and the standards of DLC. Why would someone say, "it's at least as good as the DLC, therefore it's worth the same score at base!" When it's not a full game like the base game is? That doesn't even make sense, it's just adding more content onto the base game, why does the score need to reflect the fact that game the reviewer already enjoyed is still present when that should be assumed from the start, zeroing the scale - in this case, a 5/10? It clearly didn't do anything to go beyond what the base game already offered, and is just another mission, so why should it be judged as more than just average from a critical standpoint, when more substantial DLC exist in other games, albeit infrequently?

@NEStalgia that's a whole other bag of chips. As we don't know when they started working on the DLC (I dont know if it was confirmed on disk already). usually DLC gets worked on late in the dev cycle or even after the game has gone gold. And there are arguments for and against. As long as it isn't on disk or has a MAJOR plot point (ME Arrival, DA2 cant remember the name of the dlc that introduces the villain for Inquisition...) then I'm kinda meh about it. I can take it or leave it.

@CanisWolfred Your argument doesn't make sense to me. you are saying that a mission pack, that has arguably the same gameplay and functions as an small extension (so not an expansion) of the existing game is viewed as average for offering gameplay that was deemed highly enjoyable. The dlc isnt broken, all the functionality of the base game is still on offer and the narrative matches other side quests in the same vein of the base game. I still don't understand why that would translate to average even if you zero out the scale which actually if the gameplay still feels like an extension of that world it still translate to at least the base games score. I have not opened spidey 4 yet but if i logged in and played just the DLC I am supposed to view it as average? because it is similar to the base game? That is the point of DLC and extension of a product...to allow the gamer to spend more time in that game world doing the things that make the game fun... again this isn't an expansion so no one should be expecting some major shake up. I am not expecting far cry blood dragon (which would be an expansion, I know the term DLC is used for everything but I differentiate using a PC gamer lens.) I'm not saying you are wrong but what you are stating makes just as little sense to me as apparently what I said did for you.

@Ryu_Niiyama Because it's side content that you have to pay extra for. Is it worthwhile to pay on top of what is already in the base game. 5 is average - if it somehow made it worse, which few ever do, then it would be a travesty, one worth ripping into. Just because you're not expecting Dragon's Blood doesn't mean offering the expected and nothing else should warrant as high a recommendation.

o_O !

https://www.gamepur.com/news/30094-red-dead-redemption-2-expe...

@Ryu_Niiyama Well define "on disc DLC" in an era when for most AAA games other than Sony first party and Rockstar games, most of the base game isn't even on the disc? I mean by that argument, chapter 2 of most games is basically "free DLC"

RDR2: I'm loving it so far, but I have to say that I"m loving it precisely because my expectations were in check. I never bought into the "OMG REVOLUTIONARY WILL CHANGE THE FACE OF GAMING!" hype, and just expected a very well made, good quality, fun Rockstar style Western and it's delivering that very well. I'm tempted to call it Uncharted: Breath of the Cowboy. There's a lot of Naughty Dog Walking Simulator in it, a good bit of BotW minimalist direct exploration of the world....it's good...it's very good...but it's a current gen game and nothing revolutionary. A worthwhile experience, easily may make some favorites lists, but the whole "this sells a bajillion copies in 10 minutes" nonsense is pure marketing effect.

@CanisWolfred While not totally historically accurate that's the one thing I do like about RDR2 so far rather than traditional hollywood is it does seem to go out of its way to be pretty realistic. Not to specific details, but realistic in environment, the nature of life in the era, a pretty realistic take. Not historical, specifically but as close to a holodeck of 1899 we're going to get in our lifetimes. Of course any narrative that's not a 12 hour PBS documentary is going to take the Forest Gump approach and condense tons of elements.

Of course the history in history books is mostly bland fantasy that never existed also, as are real world historic landmarks, people visit for history, such as Williamsburg, VA that is in fact not "historic colonial Williamsburg. The real thing was flatted half a century ago. The "better" version was built using architectural styles of half a dozen locations and epochs. And they wholesale it as history.

Cool. It will definitely sell more than the first then, which sold around 15 million overall.

It'll outsell Black Ops 4 in lifetime sales too given that the online will keep the game going for years.

My guess is if they release a PC version too, it could be 25 million sales.

Yep a lot of history is complete nonsense when you look into the actual details. They routinely use the existence of SOME evidence to jump straight to claims of certainty.

The evidence for really important claims is often not that great. A good example being the claim that Hitler died in 1945. The evidence for that isn't as convincing as most people have been lead to believe. It was essentially just the dental records for a burnt corpse that they found in a bunker. Well that could easily have been faked. They don't tell you that though. They just state it as an undeniable fact.

Sony seems really mute about the DevCon 2018...

Only developpers with invitation are able to browse the website (they got log in access), the others are not able to check the details, everything's hidden.

https://devcon2018.london/protected-content/?redirect_to=http...
I say it again, the PS5 will be available in 2019...

@Cobalt
Even if PS5 will be on late 2019, you still have NO Idea what it looks like, does it backward compatible with previous machines, what is first 30 PS5 games at launch, what other features from PS5.
Keep your expectation low.

@Cobalt Around about this time 2012 we started hearing, and in some cases, seeing development kits for the upcoming Xbox and PlayStation consoles, I specifically remember the picture of the Xbox One dev kit being leaked. There was even a blurry image of a PS4 out in the wild which everyone believed to be fake until the console was officially shown off.

I imagine very similar things will happen again as keeping such things secret in today's world is going to be even more difficult than it was back in 2012. So if we start seeing believable leaks and pictures of dev kits etc, then I will believe that they are looking at a 2019 launch. If we don't then I am expecting a 2020 launch.

Judging by how games right now are really pushing the systems to the limits - just look at Red Dead Redemption 2 and the upcoming Sony first party titles, it's pretty clear next generation is around the corner. We just need to be patient.

@FragRed

First thing first, the PS5 devkits are running already at Ubi and other developers.
Second thing, the 2019 year in the industry starts in March 2019 until March 2020.

PS : Ghost of Tsushima, The last of us 2, Death stranding are PS5 titles, who doubts about that ? lol
PS4 owners are gonna get a PS4 versions but "the real versions" will be on PS5 that's for sure !

E3 2019 is gonna be incredible ! ^^

My local supermarket had a shelf full of Red Dead 2 games on release day. The entire shelf is already empty. And I live in a small town in the middle of the countryside.
I think this game has sold well!

@Cobalt

"Real version" will probably just mean 30fps on PS4 and 60FPS on PS5. If they release on both, I doubt they'll make 2 versions.
Cyberpunk will almost definitely be a cross-gen game too. Maybe Halo Infinite as well.

God I really hope that's the generation of consoles that can actually manage 1080p60fps.

But instead we'll probably just get 4k30-ish most of the time.

@Dezzy

Not only the framerate but a lot of technical advancement in term of particules, shaders, lightings, shadowing, mapping techniques etc... + fully 4K support !

@Dezzy If the PS5 has backwards compatibility, you may just see a PS4 version where putting it into your PS5 gives the improvements. So kind of like how XB1 has standard 1080p/30fps for Forza Horizon 4 but XB1X has standard 4K/30fps with the option to change it to 1080p/60fps.

@PikPi I think you’re right about that trail of thought. Sony and Microsoft are already pushing 4K as the future, without even getting the 1080p 60 FPS they as standard - something that they were both saying was what the current generation was all about.

@Cobalt I have no doubt a lot of publishers, especially big ones, have dev kits. In fact, I would imagine they’ve had some form of next generation hardware for several years already as often is the way. But that doesn’t mean it’s coming next year. It also doesn’t prove that Sony’s forthcoming exclusives will be cross generation, though it is likely even if the PS5 is backwards compatible.

PC can't even reliably go 4K 60fps for every game right now (SoulCalibur VI comes to mind immediately), there's a very slim chance next gen can hit 4K 60fps for most games. 1440p 60fps maybe depending on the game, but still not going to be 4K 60fps.

I've heard a lot of people say things like this. I'm afraid this really doesn't make any actual sense.

You're presenting whether a console can run games at 1080p60fps as if it's purely a function of the hardware. It's not. It's entirely dependent on WHAT it's trying to run. Both the PS3 and PS4 could run things at 1080p60fps. The things they could run at that output were just less graphically impressive than the things they could run at 720p30fps (and the thing the PS3 could run at that output was less impressive than what the PS4 could at the same output).
"Graphically impressive" in this case means everything that makes a game look good that isn't either framerate or resolution. So that includes shader complexity, draw distance, number of separate objects on screen, amount of alpha blending etc etc

So the expectation that a console will ever run all of it's games at 60fps is effectively saying either
1) Developers will prioritise framerate over advanced graphics (they generally wont)
2) Developers will run out of new graphical techniques to put into games (if that ever happens it'll be at least 50 years from now)

4K30fps will be the standard next gen, and I imagine devs will struggle to hit it even on the most powerful system.

Remember the PS3/360 era where framerates were regularly like 20fps or crap like that? We went from generally 60fps games of the PS2/GameCube era to rock-bottom framerates as if it were the N64/PS1 era.

Urgh.