NoxAeturnus

I don't buy unless I'm going to play it right now. If it's on sale, the sale will come back around (or a better one will). If I never get around to buying a game, it wasn't interesting enough for me to make time for it. I can't play everything. Better for me to pull the weeds before I spend money on them rather than after.

So...why was this marked news? Shouldn't it have been reported as rumor?

Hmm...sounds like I'll probably just stick to the physical game then. One of my favorite board games for sure though.

Wholesome af.

This guy definitely f'd up, but I sympathize with him on a smaller scale. Because this happened to me:

My aunt admiring my grandparent's new dog: "Isn't she Precious!"

Me, a sarcastic teenager: "Yeah, that'd be a great name."

Precious lived for 14 years. Great dog, dumb name.

This is a great board game, and hopefully the digital version plays nicely. I'm a particularly big fan when game mechanics model things well. Wingspan does an awesome job with that. Like the Mockingbird allowing you to lay your eggs in other nests, or the Vulture letting you scavenge cards off the top of the deck.

Well, at least they tried I guess?

Haunter is that you?

@anoyonmus @doctorhino I did say similar, not exactly the same in all respects. My point was I don't think there's an actual deal keeping Persona on playstation. Just like there wasn't really a deal keeping most of the Monster Hunter games on Nintendo. I mean maybe there is, but I strongly suspect not.

@neufel Oh yes, totally agreed. Switch should be able to run P5. It's already handling more intense games.

@neufel @crudfish @doctorhino Is it actually an exclusivity business deal though? This strikes me as similar to how Monster Hunter was for many years on Nintendo...until suddenly World hits playstation. Spinoffs (like P5S) have gone to other systems, but other than the recent P4G port to PC mainline Persona has stayed on playstation. I suspect it has more to do with tradition than anything. Atlus is weird sometimes. And insular. I had hoped when SEGA bought them they'd be pushed a bit more, but not really so far.

Still should have been DLC.

Well it's a Nope of the Wild for me.

Every time I see twewy I laugh. Now that's a fun acronym to say. GASP! Did they rip-off acronyms too?!

Why didn't they just release this as an update to the first one? Or put some new features in there. I'd love to be able to hook it up to Spotify and have it find and use tracks that are the right BPM, then I could listen to whatever kind of music I want.

@AlexOlney This is a fantastic article. I too love Pokemon and wish it would finally leverage some of its vast potential instead of rehashing. I'd add to your pipe dream that we should just do away with HMs and calling other people's pokemon and just tie the environmental traversal effects to the pokemon's TYPE. Need to get through a mysterious shadow blocking the path? You'll need a dark pokemon for that, and you'll have to go out into the wild and find one. I like your idea for gyms, but I'd also say they could double down on the mono-typing and force the player to ONLY use pokemon of that type in that gym. Type matchups are for street fights and top tier battles - make us beat the gym leader at their own game and prove we're a better trainer of that kind of pokemon than them (gyms could even have mini-games inside to help level up Pokemon of that type, or teach them special moves). Pokemon has never really rewarded players for training a wide variety of monsters, but if you can just access your boxes from anywhere at any time you could be retooling your team instantly. They could really streamline the training with a catchup mechanic too. For example, say the TRAINER has a level, and as long as a pokemon is below the trainer's level, it only has to participate in a single fight against any Pokemon to go up X levels. The games have so much potential, I'd hate think they already reached their peak.

Nat Dex was disappointing, but wasn't even the biggest problem. The game was bland. The story really felt like it was about the Champion and I was just a tagalong. And it took me 15 hours to beat with nothing to do in the post game. Definitely the worst value for the price in Pokemon history.

I think the lack of adventure sums up my primary disappointment. Pokemon used to be a game about going out into the wilds and taming them. Now it's a game about being walked through a series of challenges by NPC chaperones.

Nintendo is slow to change, so I don't expect them to go full mobile any time soon. But if they created a dongle attachment and a bluetooth Nintendo controller, or a decent screen mirroring app, every mobile device or tablet could theoretically be a Switch and they'd only need to be able to launch their own eshop, or put their games on the existing marketplaces. They could even release their own mobile hardware that guarantees game performance - I'd buy a Nintendo smartphone or tablet, especially if it was running some version of Android. I am not predicting this will be Nintendo's future, but it seems like a possible future based on the direction they've been going.

@Heavyarms55 Pokemon gets a pass for pay to play or wait a week MTX? Well ok, it's not like they're the largest franchise in the world. And thank goodness the brand isn't aimed at children or anything.

If they really wanted to convert Pokemon Go players to the main series, they would make this free and easy. This sort of monetization is crap in any game. It's particularly disheartening to see it in a beloved franchise that has clearly lost its way.

My love of LoZ convinced me to download the demo. Boring musou gameplay convinced me to delete it. Hopefully someone puts together a nice cutscene and story summary on youtube after launch because that's all I care about and it's not good enough for me to waste hours mashing buttons to get to the next cutscene.

They should have made an effort to make sure that all the starters made it in at the very least. But you know...gotta catch 'em some.

Played the demo, no issues for me that made it unplayable, but...I still do not understand the appeal of musou at all. I pressed like 4 buttons and it was like 100 KOs! I played through the whole first map and the gameplay boils down to half a dozen monsters that are an ok fight, and a whole lot of running across a map filled with trash fights. Yawn.

514th comment. I didn't read them all. For the people who did, did anyone up there actually agree with Pachter?

@TCF One of the screenshots up there has what looks like an objective box that says "defeat many training opponents" with a timer. I'll bet this is the tutorial, both for you as the player and Link as the character.

I hope they make more interesting games in the future too. Musou bores me.

This looks really good. Short doesn't detract for me, could be a fun gap filler.

@Rhaoulos Absolutely agree. RPG has become so ubiquitous that the term is losing all meaning.

@the_beaver @Rhaoulos To oversimplify, strategies are the decisions you make about the battle, while tactics are the decisions you make to actually do the battle. If you're choosing which battles to fight, considering how different battles are linked together, or what the goals of the battles are then you're engaging in strategy (Civilization for example). If you're selecting individual units and telling them how to fight the battle, you're engaging in tactics (Fire Emblem for example). In practice though, games in both genres tend to have elements of both strategy and tactics, the only real difference between a TRPG and an SRPG are which way they lean.

Because when I play games I stare at the cartridge artwork the whole time. It's ridiculous the number of people who are addicted to outrage.

@Gaymer90 I shouldn't need to route through SE's servers to play with people in the same room. Both because my home internet is not stable enough for online play and because I often have my switch in places where there is no internet.

Not enough servers? You only gave people one way to play multiplayer in a game designed for 4-player co-op. Crystal Chronicles isn't much fun alone. How did you not see this coming?

Lack of couch co-op is a dealbreaker for me. If it was either or between crossplay and couch co-op, I'd choose couch co-op every single time.

@Ogbert Great catch. You can even still see the shape of the grip of the gun in his left hand.

Not my favorite Zelda, but not a bad game either. I'm not sure I'd bother with a replay. Bring me Twilight Princess and Windwaker again, can't get enough of those two.

@NEStalgia I totally understand what you're saying about relative challenge. You are not understanding what I'm saying about the benefits of absolute challenge because you do not see any benefits to that style of game. At no point am I suggesting that everyone should find that level of challenge fun. What I'm suggesting is that not every game needs to be fun for everyone. There are plenty of games to play that aren't Dark Souls. Not every game needs to be Dark Souls. In fact, I believe wholeheartedly that MOST games shouldn't be Dark Souls. Accessibility is good for the majority of games. But I think Souls has its place, as it is, without an easy mode. I've spent a lot of words on my position already, if you don't understand where I'm coming from by now, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

@NEStalgia I don't think accomplishments need to be shared or shown off to be accomplishments, that's what personal means. I'm not beating Dark Souls to go online and say, "Hey look, I beat the thing! Look at me!" I'm beating it to prove I can do it for myself. I think there is a difference between viewing a 50 foot cliff and wondering if I can climb it, and viewing a 50 foot cliff and wondering if I can scale it down to 20 feet because I don't have time to climb to 50. When the challenge is set and immovable, there's no alternative. Its an opportunity to test myself against it and discover my limits. Maybe I fail, maybe I don't care enough about the game to put the work in to beat it. It happens. Those games are not for me. I don't demand that they be adjusted so that I can finish them. The fact that I can lose, that I might have to quit because I might not have the skill to complete the game is critical to my enjoyment of that specific game. I also reject the idea that the primary purpose of ALL games is to provide fun (although this is true for many games!). Games can provide playgrounds for self-discovery. They can teach us things about ourselves, the world around us, and other people, and not in a direct didactic way like a lecture. They can even provide environments to test and develop physical manually dexterity and hand eye coordination, timing, and rhythm. They can provide narratives that resonate just like movies and novels. And there are so many more reasons to play games than just "for fun" or "as a job." For example, MDA game design outlines 8 different aesthetics of play. Challenge alone is a valid reason to play games, it's just not YOUR reason for playing games. Which is also fine. Which is why my question still stands: with so many games out there that allow adjustable difficulty, why do the rare few that do not need to change?

@TG16_IS_BAE Completing a challenging game is an accomplishment. Accomplishments can have different scales of importance. At no point did I suggest that beating a game is of the same importance as achieving major life milestones. And you also seem to be mistaken in believing that I care at all what others think of my accomplishment. Beating a challenging game is a personal accomplishment. It doesn't feel good for a moment, it feels good forever because its something I know I did. For myself. Because it was difficult and I persevered and won anyway. I don't have to share an accomplishment with others for it to be meaningful to me.

@NEStalgia You say that a sense of accomplishment is useless. And for you, that's true. I say it is valuable. Different games for different people. I don't need to be paid to "do work" as you call it. I enjoy the process of learning a new skill, even a skill that's financially useless like playing a video game. If you don't, then you fundamentally don't understand why I enjoy that kind of game, which again should give anyone pause when advocating for a game to be changed. The nice thing about the gaming landscape is that we have many different games for a variety of different people, so it's okay to sometimes have games for people whose enjoyment of games is different from our own and possibly incomprehensible to us personally.

@TG16_IS_BAE If you can't see the value in personal accomplishment then I am sad for you. Not everything in life is about an end product, and personal growth is not a trophy to show at the end. Games can be more than just entertainment, though they are that too. They can also be models and testing grounds for ideas about ourselves and the world. When my wife beat Bloodborne she learned something about herself that she hadn't known before. It undermined her personal narrative of low confidence in her abilities. Was it life changing? Not by itself, but people often change gradually over the course of many experiences. This experience was central to her enjoyment of the game and more lasting and valuable than just fleeting entertainment. If you can't understand that, then we play games for different reasons. That alone should be enough to give you pause when you advocate for modifying the type of game that I like for my own reasons to better fit your own reason for playing games. There are lots of games out there, it's okay for some to not cater to everyone. Likewise not every game needs to be Souls.

@TG16_IS_BAE In regards to #239, I respectfully disagree that there's nothing to be earned by beating a hard game and that the outcome is the same on easy. Personal accomplishment isn't nothing. My wife had never touched a Souls game because she thought she couldn't do it. And then Bloodborne came out and she loved the aesthetic and had to play it. She was abysmal at first, but she pushed through, and eventually beat the game. She has said on multiple occasions that if there had been an easy mode she would have played on it because she wouldn't have believed she could do it against a harder difficulty, but because there was no choice she had to push herself to win, and that absolutely increased her enjoyment of the game because it felt more real. She knew for sure that she was playing just as well as everyone who had beaten the game. Now, some people take that as proof of their superiority, and it's certainly a crap move to tell others that they suck for not playing hard games or for choosing easy, but that's a separate concern. Those people are jerks and shouldn't be a reason to scale the challenge in a game specifically built to be challenging. I really think there's value in burning the bridge of an easy mode in SOME games. The majority of games offer scalable difficulty already, why change the few that don't when the experience they offer is already rare and highly valued by some people?

@scully1888 I'm currently playing The Last of Us 2 on light difficulty because I don't want to put the time in to be better at a higher difficulty. I will absolutely play on easy when it's available. Saving time is VERY tempting. But Dark Souls? I still say it doesn't need an easy difficulty setting. Different players have different reasons to play games. Right now I'm casually enjoying the story in TLOU2. When I boot up Bloodborne I know exactly what it is. It's a thrown gauntlet. It says "No, you can't." And for me there's no greater feeling than pushing past my limits and overcoming that challenge. It's what makes it my very favorite series of games. That's the experience it provides. I can't adjust that world to fit my personal skill. If I want to win, I HAVE TO adjust myself to do it. No other choice. The bridges and boats are burned and there's no turning back. And quite frankly, that's a rarity in today's gaming landscape because most games do have scalable difficulty and are very accessible to a wide range of players. As they rightly should be. There's nothing wrong with wanting to enjoy a game on easy mode, and there should be no shame in it. But there should also be nothing wrong with wanting to beat an unyielding challenge and admitting that not all games are for all people. So with so many games out there that DO cater to multiple difficulty levels and player skills, my question is, why do the few that don't need to change?

I relate to a lot of this article. Time is precious, and I do frequently play on easy mode, especially when I'm just trying to coast through and enjoy a game's story. However, when the author asks if I'd rather they experience Dark Souls on an easier setting than not at all, my answer is no. The challenge is intrinsic to that game's design, and if you're not willing to face it and win anyway then that game is not for you, full stop. That should be okay. It should be okay to have games that don't bend and that offer a challenge to be overcome. Some games are a skill to be learned and mastered, and the pursuit of that challenge teaches valuable lessons about practice and perseverance, and that's undermined by just adjusting the world to reflect your personal ability. Accessibility is appropriate for many games, indeed I would say the majority of games should be as accessible as possible, but not ALL games. An easy mode would cheapen Souls in the same way that a ski lift would cheapen Mt. Everest.

@SilverdudeOmni The Switch easily has the ability to accommodate this. Me and my siblings all have our own Switches. (And as for how big anything would be on the Switch screen...bigger than a gameboy screen for sure?) Offline local wireless should have been a no brainer. Local wireless is a major feature on Switch, and necessary for me and my family in particular because internet is spotty in our location. Online only play is a dealbreaker for this game, and I could not care less about crossplay with other systems because I have never enjoyed co-op with strangers. I agree it would be a nightmare to produce on other systems, but the limitations of mobile, XB1, and PS4 should not have gimped the Switch version.

It certainly has a unique tempo, and it looks a lot more interesting than I thought it would based on how they described the Soulflame. I guess they were spot on saying that it works in an obvious way but is hard to explain.

Here's where I'm confused - can this game be played offline? Because in interviews it seems like it can't be but they're talking about so many different versions it all kind of blends together. On mobile, constant online connection is expected, but on console it's a dealbreaker for me. I'll be interested to see if the PS4 or Switch versions eschew the constant connection requirement.

Edit: The MTX are probably a dealbreaker for me too. It's too bad because I'd love a co-op game in this style.

What is even happening? 2020 Nintendo's worst year? Far from it. Must be too young to remember the Nintendo game droughts of 2009-2012 and 2015-2016. Or the Gamecube years. 2009, 2012, and 2016 were abysmal years for Nintendo. I can't think of a worse year than 2012 for them. Nearly everything was shovelware, and then the bright spot at the end of the year was Wii-U's lackluster launch lineup. Just awful.

@NintendoPok Uhh...what? I didn't say anything about Persona, but I'd be happy to have those too. I'll take whatever ATLUS games they'll give me. Digital Devil Saga would be great, Devil Summoner would be great, bring back Trauma Center and Trauma Team that'd be... you know what I think you probably get what I'm saying. Remake and port ATLUS's whole library to Switch. In the meantime I'm pumped to play Nocturne again.

Give me all the ATLUS. It's never enough.

Well it's a hard pass from me without the local co-op. This game was not very fun single player, and online co-op does me no good.

Glad to see a lot of people are grabbing Catherine. I'm not interested in it, but I hope it does well and encourages ATLUS to bring...other titles...to Switch.

So I downloaded Conduct Together and I'm pretty sure it hacked my brain. Must. Conduct. Trains.