Topic: The PlayStation Fan Thread

I’ve been leafing through the first few pages of a Dragon Quest XI import impressions thread elsewhere, and good grief! It is a beautiful looking game. This is an actual share button capture on somebody’s PlayStation 4:

It’s like a cartoon palette come to life.

I am not overly sorry to miss out on the likes of Xenoblade Chronicles, The Witcher III or Final Fantasy XV in the past couple of years however, I have got a very keen eye on this one. I absolutely adored Dragon Quest VIII on the PlayStation 2 back in the day, and this looks set to be just as good if not better than that!

@Ralizah Just found out that the big huge update for Yooka Laylee is currently going through certification. I doubt I will suddenly feel a wave of newfound positivity towards the game, but I am curious to see what these much needed changes shall bring. Heck, I might even be able to defeat Capital B this time round!

Oh, and here’s the first photo of Yooka Laylee running on the Switch:

You missed all of those?
Man, Xenoblade and Witcher 3 are probably my top 2 games of the last decade. Dark Souls 1 being the third.
Get em played!

@Peek-a-boo I liked what I played of Yooka Laylee, and it seems like the developers have been working their butts off to iron out most of its issues, which is very encouraging. I can't wait to play it on the Nintendo Switch!

And I agree, DQXI is a RIDICULOUSLY beautiful game. Games can look so good when they don't pursue bland realism in their visual styles!

Can't speak for TW3, but you didn't miss anything with FFXV and the original Xenoblade (still need to play XCX...)

They can look good when they DO pursue bland realism too.

They can. UC4, for example, has some wonderful use of color in its environments. P.T. did a lot with strategic uses of lighting in its photorealistic environment. But, with most games, I don't find this to be the case. You get a lot of games these days that are both incredibly technically accomplished and very "meh" to look at.

@Peek-a-boo You need to play The Witcher 3.

Agreed.

@Ralizah

Naughty Dog have some of the best environmental artists in the business, for sure.

I actually care more about stuff like world design in terms of interesting use of space and topology than I do about graphical snazz.
Xenoblade Chronicles has incredible world design even though it just uses standard diffuse shading that a PS2 could do.

Meanwhile you guys are putting me to sleep with all this technical jargon. I don't give a damn about the minutiae, I just want to play games, and maybe talk about it from time to time...I just spent the past two weeks playing Overwatch. No story to update on, but DOOMfist is out, I'm constantly frustrated at teams that think they're playing Team deathmatch in a game that doesn't even feature that as a mode, and Summer Games is starting up soon, which should hopefully keep the experience fresh, since I've never played Lucio Ball before.

Seriously, though, Doomfist is a fun character, but since everyone is using him, a lot of people seem to be choosing Offensive characters, either because they wanted to play as Doomfist and missed out, or because they know the other team will probably be using him, and everyone wants to be the first shmuck to take him down, and so they pick fast, manueverable characters in order to deal with him...except it's very rarely a good idea to have more than 2 offensive characters, from what I've seen. And if anything, I'm surprised so many are refusing to play Tanks now, since they have the health to deal with more than one enemy and certainly are better at handling a character who is basically screwed if any of his attacks miss. Plus, Doomfist players are better off attacking quick and then high-tailing it to safety, usually targeting weaker characters or just breaking up enemy lines so their allies can finish them off. That's really what offensive characters are for - flanking enemy defenses. They really shouldn't be our defense, yet I've been in too many matches lately where there are 4 or more offensive players defending an objective. It's more of a problem on Payload missions like Watchpoint: Gebralter, when "defending" means keeping your enemy from reaching the payload, but the spawn all the way on the other side of the map...of course, if we just had a solid defense, it wouldn't be a problem, but whatever...

At least I'm seeing more snipers, but that can be a problem too, since best sniping spots are usually far away from objectives and therefore can't actually capture an objective and are actually more useful if they aren't escorting a payload, since that keeps them from being a sitting duck.

I'm mostly just venting here, though. I mostly just play Quickplay and Capture the Flag, I don't really care that much if I lose, it's just frustrating when I lose a lot in a row for what feels like no fault on my part, but instead just a few blatantly uncooperative teams.

@Dezzy I agree, but my problem is that there's really no point in exploring XC'S gorgeous world. Almost nothing to find and little to no interactivity. Their open world design is definitely unparalleled, though: this can also be seen in XCX and Breath.

Seconded.

This is a valid point, that I...mostly disagree with. I personally thought Xenoblade's world was so beautifully designed (especially for a Wii game), that that itself was the reward for me, along with exploring and combat being inherently fun. I'd like to see more, but I'm concerned at it taking away from other things to be worked on(especially since Xenoblade 1 already did not have the most consistently compelling sidequests).

DF had a look at DQXI. I haven't seen too much gameplay yet, but I'm glad to see that everything looks as good as they promised. The art style is amazing, and world seems alive too (especially for its size). I love the little details like the moving planks on a bridge when you cross it. And the loading times aren't bad either! Hurray!

Glad we got one sorted out.

The Witcher 3 and Breath of the Wild are both flawed open world games and you don't owe them a damn thing.

There’s a reason why I haven’t played the likes of Final Fantasy XV, The Witcher III and Xenoblade Chronicles; unfortunately, I simply do not have the luxury of playing games that can take anywhere between 50 to 200 (or more) hours to complete these days.

Bloodborne took me over five months to complete, I gradually made my way through Gravity Rush 2, albeit on-and-off, in four months and I saw the credits roll on Horizon Zero Dawn nearly three months after release, despite playing it whenever I had some free time to myself. Also, having three different jobs means that long games won’t ever be finished, let alone appreciated properly.

That’s why you see me talking about indie games more than anything else, such as GNOG, Little Nightmares, Monument Valley, Pyre, RiME, SUPERHOT, What Remains of Edith Finch, Wonder Boy: The Dragon’s Trap and Yooka Laylee (although this can last much, much longer if you treat it as a collectathon) given the short but sweet nature of them.

Still, I shall attempt to begin Breath of the Wild on my Wii U in the long dark winter months... hopefully!

Fixed

God, just kiss already! The quote tree is already pregnant. You don't have to hide it anymore.

I don't like it when people quote me. That means I have to read my comment again and realise it missing words.

@Peek-a-boo I'm in the same position and it makes me sad that I no longer have the time or patience to throw myself into a 100+ hour adventure anymore sometimes I miss being an unemployed student, just because it really gave me time to immerse myself in these ridiculously long and beautiful adventures. Now I'm lucky if I can finish something with a 10 your campaign

I think it took me 7 or 8 months to finish The Witcher 3 + DLC. I played a few short games in between, but it was mostly The Witcher 3 for the majority of the year. I didn't regret it though.

@Haru17 I agree, although I would say, more broadly: "All games are flawed, and you don't owe them a damn thing." Life is short. Play what interests you, folks.

@Peek-a-boo This is one reason I love the Switch so much. Progressing through some giant 100 hour RPG on consoles is a chore, and takes me months and months to accomplish. I'm willing to bite that bullet to play something I absolutely love, like Persona 5, but in general I just don't have constant enough access to my home consoles to make insanely long games consistently worth playing. The Switch, on the other hand, is so versatile that it makes long games doable for me. I can play on the TV when I have the time at home, but, more often than not, the tablet will be in my bag, waiting to be played here and there in those spare moments when I'm free. The ease of putting the system into rest mode means I can leave a game at almost any point, which means I don't have to plan my day around playing it.

I used to play the heck out of my handheld games and always be behind with my collection of home console games. The same is true now, but with a slight twist: I'm able to keep up with all of the experiences on my Switch because they're as easy to access as my handheld games.

@kkslider5552000 I guess that was another problem for me. I... don't hate the battle system, but I didn't find it to be particularly fun, either. And I have hard time finding exploration to be fun when you can't really interact with your environment. If you really like those aspects of the game, though, I can totally understand why you love it.

Another issue I had was the weird in-game systems that added nothing to the game, in my opinion. Like, the fact that heart-to-hearts were locked behind raising your affinity with certain characters drove me nuts. It'd be like if the flashback spots in BotW told you that you needed to grind for hours with that characters in your party before you could access them to see a simple, short cinematic.