roadrunner343

@NEStalgia I can't comment on III, but to me, it does feel like Zombies is a pretty substantial part of the game now, although I've mainly played standard multiplayer/blackout. Zombies even show up in the Blackout mode. I'm by no means an expert on the franchise though, so feel free to seek out other opinions/reviews.

As for Tom Clancy games, I agree - Ubi just keeps making Siege better and better. I wasn't impressed at first, and skipped it, but just picked it up a couple months ago for cheap during a Steam sale and really enjoy it. Strictly comparing standard multiplayer modes, Siege beats out BO4, no questions asked. At least in my book. Then again, the reason I like Siege so much more (Tactical, team based gameplay, with lengthier competitive rounds) is the same reason I decided to give BO4 a shot - for those occasions I just don't have time for a full competitive match, and I want a few minutes of mindless, easy listening gunplay.

@NEStalgia I think it's clear I certainly don't believe it deserves top marks for the decade, since this is the first I've purchased at full price in that time =) Then again, top marks != top selling. Your "Least common denominator" comment certainly rings true with that. That said, I do think the game does more than failing to be bad. I think it's a solid, good game. Just not great or innovative. 7.5-8ish for me, if I were forced to score it.

As for realism, yeah, not a chance... it's super fast paced, arcadey shooter type. And of course, there are zombies, so I threw realism out quite some time ago. I can see why many people would have issues with it if they go into the series looking for that. Visually, I suppose is does evoke that feeling, but definitely not gameplay wise. I'd say Siege does a much better job of that, but even then, I struggle to call any FPS "realistic"...

Really like it. I know I wouldn't use it for at least another 5 years, but I'm tempted by the large one for long term storage when I no longer have my Switch out all the time.

@NEStalgia Thanks for detailed response. I do agree, I don't think it does any one thing amazingly well. I like that BO4 borrowed from Siege, but I still prefer Rainbow Six Siege's tactical gameplay & hero selection for a standard multiplayer mode. I think Titanfall's movement felt better. It completely lacks singleplayer mode, which many competitors offer. As an overall package though, it does seem to do everything very competently, even if not best in class.

As for BR, it does seem to me to be the best BR available right now. I had a lot of fun playing PUBG, despite it being an absolute technical mess. So even being completely unoriginal, having a polished BR experience is a big win in my book. At this point in life, I am also more inclined for an "Easy listening" type game as you say, so I have been enjoying the other game modes as well, since you can jump in and out for just a few minutes at a time, but I will admit, there's nothing truly groundbreaking or innovative there.

EDIT: The other thing I'll mention, is that at least in BO4, it does feel like CoD went for faster paced, small scale battles. It doesn't feel stuck between quake/battlefield. Apart from the BR mode, it looks like there's only 12 players max. Gameplay if also much quicker than I remember, but again, that was 10 years ago. I still wouldn't say I'm a CoD fan, and I have a ton a critique regarding the franchise as a whole, but I also think it gets a lot of undeserved hate, simply because it's popular. Not accusing you of doing that, you made valid critiques with a lot of good examples, most of which I agree fully with.

@NEStalgia I'm genuinely curious, why is it so far at the bottom for you? Don't get me wrong, if you were to ask me about franchises as a whole, I'd agree with you - I like pretty much all the ones you listed better. I quit playing CoD after CoD4, mainly because it got stale and stopped innovating.

Admittedly, I decided to pickup BO4 primarily for the Blackout mode, because I really like the concept of BR, I just really don't enjoy Fortnite's gameplay and PUBG is so buggy and maneuvers very poorly. That said, I've been enjoying all of the modes, but again - I'm coming off a decade long break from the franchise. BO4 in particular (I can't speak to the entire franchise) feels like a perfectly competent, high paced FPS game with a bunch of great game modes. Obviously, if you're not big on online multiplayer, it wouldn't be the title for you, but otherwise, I can see why it remains popular. There's just no way I would ever purchase each annual release. Once a decade feels about right for me =)

@Anti-Matter Great. Then don't pretend to understand what does or does not make a quality FPS game.

@Anti-Matter If you are "Anti-Popular" or "Anti-Mainstream" you hold one of the most ridiculously indefensive positions possible. I play far more indie/non-mainstream titles than AAA, but hating something simply because it is popular? That would be ridiculous.

Furthermore, how do you think you are remotely qualified on what makes a good FPS game? As someone that admittedly does not, and will not ever, play such horrendously evil video games, I would say your opinion on the entire genre is null.

That said, as someone that has not played CoD since CoD:MW, I've been really enjoying BO4. Of course people will hate it because it's popular, and even more so because it includes a BR mode, but all of the included modes have been a great deal of fun so far. Granted, I'd probably be sick of it if I purchased annually, but as someone that hasn't played CoD/Battefield seriously for a decade, I have no problems saying I really enjoy this game. Even if it is popular.

@LUIGITORNADO Have you ever tried one?

I get the complaints about Free to Play, but how else are you going to track popularity of free to play titles? Just pretend the article is titled "Most Downloaded Titles" (Like the article body indicates) and the list is accurate. It's not a list of top grossing games by revenue.

@Shambo Obviously they don't think it is currently the best ever, or they wouldn't be working to update it with this remaster and re-release. That doesn't mean it can't be your favorite.

@BulbasaurusRex If you've got some to spare, I'll be more than happy to buy them off you =)

Luckily for me, I prefer handheld consoles anyway. I frequently play GBA games, but I actually prefer using my GBA (w/backlit screen) or GBA SP. I hadn't really considered the GameBoy player, as I never had one, but that does really suck. I'm still holding out hope that someone reverse engineers the cables. I'd give it a crack, but that would require me having multiple sets of cables that cost $200-$300 on hand, so that's not happening any time soon =)

@Korosanbo Sweet. Now that might get me to double dip.

@Dr_Corndog Did not mean to imply you were arguing (yet), only that I think it's a bit pointless to nitpick over using the word "indie" to describe an indie game and risk starting an argument, when I think it's obvious he is simply saying he believes the game to deserve a higher score, and it also happens to be an indie game.

@Dr_Corndog Because many people stupidly treat indies as lesser games? That doesn't mean he does. No need to make up a reason to argue over nothing. It's quite obvious all he is saying is he thinks this game deserves a 9.

@Frendo @ilikeike Agreed. If I had to guess, I spend far more time playing indie titles than I do AAA. I love all types of games, it's just there are so many great indie developers out there. It's pretty much Nintendo + Indies for me, with the occasional AAA PC release.

@JayJ @Alucard83 I mean, what's the alternative? This game was a very good game when it launched, and it's still a good game now. Do you want them to rate it in the 5-6 range simply because it launched a few years ago? That would be nonsense.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the overall complaint of this year's releases for Switch. It wasn't too bad for me personally, but that's because I love Mario Party, Smash, and many other indie titles that I didn't play when they first released. Even so, there was still a very slow period for me this summer, so I fully understand the critique. That doesn't mean I think a games rating should drop just because it is re-released or if it is an indie title. I'd like to think we are all smart enough to take a game's rating, weigh it against the cost, and whether or not we've played it before, and make an intelligent decision for ourselves.

@BulbasaurusRex Yeah - it's not so much the component connections on a TV - though they are also becoming more rare as well. The biggest issue is that the Gamecube component cables have some special circuitry in them that has never been reverse engineered, which is why you can't find check $5 clone cables. It's quite obnoxious. Still, for my money, Wii component will work just fine. And I'm the type that typically doesn't mind paying for higher quality and I've modded many of my own systems. In this case, it just doesn't seem worth it.

@Heavyarms55 It's available for free on PC, and has been for quite some time. Not Cave Story+ mind you, so that may be a bad example... but in a world where Cave Story+ didn't exist, I would purchase the original on a cart.

Still, the only real point I was trying to make is that I can see the appeal in purchasing physical versions of free games, given the correct type of game. I won't be rushing out to buy physical versions of Fortnite, League of Legends, or Candy Crush anytime soon though.

@Heavyarms55 Personally, I would have no problems paying for a free to play game. Cave Story, Battle for Wesnoth, or even possible even the original Fortnite single player mode. What seems ridiculous to me, is paying for a free game that is also 100% online only. The biggest perk to me buying physical games is knowing that they are a part of my collection and will be playing 20 years from now. I don't know why you would want a physical copy of a free to play, online only game though.

@Heavyarms55 I don't have one of these, but I came here to post pretty much the same thing. I play my GCN games on my Wii because GCN component cables are absurd. I've seen them go for $300 on eBay. So yes, this adapter is not for most people - but if you're the type of person that was looking for a higher quality image, this is a great alternative to the component cables. I still hope someone reverse engineers the component cables someday, so I can use my GCN on my CRT via component. Until then, the Wii and upscalers/this adapter will have to suffice.

@impurekind I'm the one twisting things, when you resort to insults and calling people trolls when you consistently ignore my original response, in its original context, to the original poster? Because my main concern (Resolution) differs from yours (Motion sickness) it is somehow not genuine? That's not twisting, that's exactly what you said. But please, continue with the baseless accusations/insults, like you have done to multiple people throughout this thread and the other VR related article. Everyone that disagrees with you is "Ignorant" or "Knows nothing of VR" or some other such rubbish. I love VR, and I want to see more people get into it too - but you come off as a total VR zealot, and everyone that disagrees with you about VR or it's current/future state are short-sighted or ignorant.

@impurekind I'm a troll moron for stating I have issues with VR, that apparently you don't? And for directly responding to someone else's concern, with experience of my own? Yeah, I'm trolling alright.

First, you throw out completely irrelevant comparisons, using standard 240p/480p image sources as a comparison, which is completely irrelevant to VR experiences. Then, you completely ignore the context of my posts, which included things like the OP's concerns and Nintendo's behavior as a company, and go off on a sales pitch for VR like a zealot. I love VR - no need to sell me on it.

Of course VR "could" happen on switch in it's current state. It happened on Virtual Boy 23 years ago. Does that mean it should happen? I don't think so, and I don't see Nintendo releasing a sub par VR experience whenever there are much better solutions out there, also still with their fair share of problems.

EDIT: Go on with the baseless assumption that I've never shared my rift with anyone. I have friends and family that loved my rift - you know, just like I did, by the way. You seem to think I hate it. So now that we've got that out of the way - can we drop the stupidity of saying I'm bothered by resolution simply because I'm into tech? Can we stop using the example of initial reaction of people being "Blown away" by VR as a sales pitch for all VR? I was one of those people blown away. So were my friends and family, gamers and non-gamers both. Whether I am the minority, or a techie, has no bearing on what I believe the shortcomings are of VR in its current state.

I also found my rift a bit uncomfortable after long periods of time, something that no one would complain about if they just demo it for 10-15 minutes at a party. My friend with glasses had issues with it fitting correctly. I think the headset gets warm after a while. I don't get motion sickness, but others do. It's difficult to drive VR at comfortable frame rates. You're really going to try to tell me these are only concerns because I'm into tech? Of course not. The majority simply haven't had these negative experiences yet, because they haven't owned a VR headset for any period of time. They don't ruin the experience, but that doesn't mean we have to completely ignore them and write off everyone's concerns that happen to differ from our own opinions. The OP specifically called out resolution/screen door effect, which is one of my personal chief complaints, so of course I focused my attention there. Had he called out comfort, fit, frame rate, immersion, game library, etc... we'd be having a different discussion. Couple that with the actual topic at hand (Nintendo) and I don't see Nintendo releasing a VR device for Switch anytime soon. Could they? Perhaps. Could they release an acceptable quality solution? I don't think so.

@impurekind Of course we're in the minority - that has no bearing on whether or not resolution bothers some people. It's like saying "only tech geeks are bothers by motion sickness in VR" - it is an absurd unrealistic, and totally irrelevant claim. Given the original post I responded to specifically called out resolution, of course that's where my response focused. Perhaps take posts into context, rather than trying to sell everyone on VR? I'm fully capable of loving VR, really enjoying my time with my Rift, and simultaneously criticizing its shortcomings.

@impurekind Which is an incredibly stupid and arrogant thing to say, when I'm telling you, it actively bothers me. I love VR. Yes, I'm a tech nerd. I would LOVE for the screen door effect to not bother me. Just as I'm sure other would love to not be bothered by motion sickness, or sensitivity to frame rate while in VR. To say that I'm making up an issue simply because I'm into tech is ridiculous.

You sound like nothing more than a fanboy/salesperson for VR. Stop trying to sell me on VR. I'm sold! I love it. The experience is super compelling. Most of my friends I've shown it to loved it as well. It's not perfect though. Screen door effect, even on higher resolutions, bother people. Frame rates, even on more powerful machines, bother people. This isn't something unique to me or techies, and considering it is the one issue the original poster commented on, I provided my personal experience with it. If you can play VR just fine on lower resolutions, fine, have at it! But don't pretend that it isn't an issue at all.

@onex You bring up a lot of good points, in that the Switch could have been the perfect device for VR. The modular nature, the joy-con, etc... I don't disagree there. I don't think we're going to get a system that is capable of driving 2x1080p images anytime soon from Nintendo.

@impurekind I disagree very strongly. And that's fine - the screen door effect bothers people to varying degrees. Despite loving my Rift, the resolution is absolutely one of my chief complaints. It definitely prevented me from being truly immersed. It also makes reading text a pretty extreme chore. Cut the resolution down further, and drastically lower frame rates due to Switch's limited hardware, and the effect is even more pronounced. Considering the screen door effect was the main concern to the person I initially responded to, I don't think I'm taking anything too literally. If the screen door effect doesn't bother you on top-end headsets, great! It's a pretty severe bother to me though, and it's going to be much worse on switch.

It's also not even a remotely relevant comparison between old low-res sources, like my huge collection of retro systems that output 240p/480p. I love them. I play on old handhelds, I play on a Sony BVM CRT, and I play my SuperNT on a modern TV. That has no bearing on how resolution and frame rate impact you once strapped directly to your face.

EDIT: I know we talked about this in another thread, but to re-iterate for others who missed it: I love VR, I had a blast with my Rift. It's just not without its fair share of problems. Considering I believe there to be pretty major issues with high end sets at the moment, it's obvious those issues would be exacerbated even further on a lower resolution, lower powered machine.

@impurekind One of the specific issues @mew mentioned was the screen door effect - which would definitely be a major issue on a 720p screen. Also, having something "work" does not mean it would be a pleasant experience in any way. Far too low resolution, and far too low frame rate, would ultimately lead to a very poor experience. There's plenty of people dissatisfied with the higher resolution screens of the current Rift, Vive, PSVR, etc... and it's difficult enough to get comfortable frame rates with power PC hardware at times. Couple that with drastically less powerful hardware of the Switch, and there's no way VR will be happening on the Switch, in my opinion. I also disagree that such a sub par experience would "impress quite a few people." Sure, there may be some that are impressed by it, but I think there will be just as many if not more that are extremely disappointed by such a solution. We also know Nintendo does not like to release half-baked ideas, so I don't think we'll be seeing any sort of Nintendo branded VR until the technology is quite a bit more mature.

@Mew Unfortunately, I don't think that is possible with the Switch. It would need to be a completely new device. First, the Switch is currently a 720p screen - we'd need to see a ridiculously massive upgrade to the screen to have an acceptable resolution for VR. Even upgrading to 1080p would be insufficient, as that image is split between your eyes. The Vive & Rift still have a very prominent screen door effect with 1080p per eye, so splitting a 1080p image would be a very poor experience. Then of course, driving 2 x 1080p images at a comfortable framerate would require far more power than the Switch, and presumably any revision of the Switch, would reasonably be able to provide. And to be clear, I'm not saying Nintendo never does VR - I just don't think they'll do it on the Switch platform.

True, when out and about, you almost always have a phone with you that you can use. But if only there were a device I ALWAYS had with me, when playing my Switch though... like the Switch.

As others have mentioned, a phone is also connected to a service. Many kids don't have their own smartphone. I know several lower income families that don't have smartphones. It just seems to be a ridiculous and arbitrary limitation, especially since we've seen Fortnite side step this circus.

@shadow-wolf I agree with you. I don't even think Reggie believes what he is saying here.

@pullmyfinger NL is not a "Part of" Metacritic. How they decide to aggregate and label their ratings has nothing to do with how NL labels theirs. 8 is great in my book. And Nintendolife's. And IGN's. And Gamespots. Polygon says "Super Mario Party brings the franchise back to greatness".. sure seems like most of the "Major" publications consider it great... but yeah, lol.

@Nintendo_Thumb Do elaborate or provide a source link on this wizardry you speak of.

@impurekind I may have mis-read your earlier post. I thought it was stating the total market was estimated to be 40 million - not 40 million per year. 40 million per year would be very impressive, ineed. At that point, I would be hard pressed to argue it wasn't mainstream. I still have my doubts that we will see 40 million units moved per year by 2022, but I absolutely hope we do, because that means the tech will have improved drastically to receive such widespread adoption. Unfortunately, your link disappeared... so I can't go back and read the article.

@impurekind Thanks for the link. I won't complain if it happens. 40 million headsets by 2022 is great growth. However, due to the fragmented nature of VR/AR in it's current state, I still don't think 40 million is all that mainstream. I.E., if the entire console market was 40 million consoles, would you consider that mainstream? I'm not saying you're wrong if you would, just elaborating that personally, I would not. That's what I'm saying I have my doubts of in the next 10 years or so - I don't think we'll see a truly mainstream VR/AR platform get as big as one of the other major platforms.

@impurekind We'll see - I have no intentions of arguing about it, because I honestly don't know. I wouldn't mind seeing several hundred million VR/AR/MR devices out there - my gut just says it isn't happening anytime soon. Also, it would depend on what you and I mean by soon. I'm thinking within the next 10 years we'll see VR continue to grow, but still not be anywhere near as successful as the mainstream consoles of the time. Again, I have no issues with being wrong here, that's just my gut reaction to how I've seen technology adopted in the past.

@DartBuzzer I don't really agree that it needs to be the norm. Using my favorite VR experience as an example, racing sims, they will remain a very isolating experience for the most part. There's no need to make asymmetrical game play the norm, imo. That's not a problem - it's part of what makes that experience great - but it's also a large part of what make VR hard for me to get into now, with little kids running around. However, I do agree that the ability to view the real world through the headset will become the norm in the next generation of VR - AR/VR/MR will continue to meld as you say, and the issue will be much smaller for me. I stepped away from VR for now, but I have no doubts I'll be back.

EDIT: And to be clear, I'm not against more asymmetrical experiences - as I said, KTANBE was one of my favorite party games ever - I just don't think it's a requirements. Traditional experiences will remain, and the disconnectedness that accompanies those experiences in VR's current state will remain an issue for some.

@DartBuzzer I too love VR - but for the most part, I agree with @NEStalgia that it may never be "Mainstream". Of course, that may mean something different from person to person. And it's also a bit absurd to know what the future 10-20 years from now will look like. Maybe MR/AR is the future, and everyone will adopt it en masse - but I have my doubts. VR in its current (And near future state) of wearing a headset, with or without wires, I do not believe will ever be the next big thing. That doesn't diminish the experience IMO, and I still really love it - it's just not without it's fair share of issues.

I do agree with you of isolating vs. anti-social, but I don't think that's the point that was trying to be made either. It is clearly anti-social to the people in the same room/house for 99% of the VR experiences. Yes, some games like Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes are AMAZING social games - one of the very few I got my entire family (Wife, parents, brothers, and their wives) to play with me - but that's not the norm. For the most part, you are very cutoff from the outside world, and it's the main reason I don't play VR anymore - I can't really be cutoff from my kids & wife. So I fully agree, calling it an isolating experience is more accurate, but it is still an issue for some scenarios. Again, not a bad thing per se, just a trade off of the tech in its current state.

EDIT: @NEStalgia I also agree with you for the most part that VR isn't ready for the masses, and some still view it as a tech demo. One thing I would say that feels 100% ready, is anything cockpit based. I used to have a full racing cockpit I built, and switching from triple monitors (They now reside happily on my task) to VR was the best decision I ever made. Racing sims, EVE Valkyrie, and Elite Dangerous were all amazing. Even Lucky's Tale, while short, easy, and not cockpit based, was a great experience that felt polished and really showed the benefits of what VR could be in non-cockpit based games. I know I'll get into VR again in the future when my kids are older and the tech matures a bit, pretty much solely for racing sims. It's the most immersive experience I've ever had. Now we're talking niche within a niche, but still... outstanding for anyone interested in that type of experience.

@Medic_alert I won't speak for him, but to me, it doesn't appear he is ignoring it. It's just a side effect of the technology. It bothers some people, others it doesn't. Do we really want to limit VR to only games that are cockpit based, or use teleportation for movement? I don't think so. If some people can enjoy standard games without any adverse symptoms, have at it. For those that it bothers, they should stay away from those types of games.

@TheFanatic It never gets old though. I always get a chuckle out of it, so that has to count for something.

@impurekind I don't disagree with you that Nintendo games in VR would be great, I don't think any games will "work" in VR on Switch, ever. As someone that also owned a Rift, the screen door effect bothered me a bit already. I can't imagine how awful it would be with a 720p (360p per eye) screen.

@NEStalgia I'm with you - I'm not hardcore into fighting games anymore, but you can tell the difference right away. I've had all my enclosures custom made (up to 4 now, sadly...) - my main 14" enclosure uses Sanwa JLF stick/Sanwa buttons, and I have 3 9.5" enclosues (1 for 4 way, 1 for 8 way, 1 hitbox) but they all use Seimitsu buttons. I play a lot of non-fighting arcade games, and like the slightly stiffer feel. As you said, you don't have to be much a fighting aficionado to feel the difference. Though, if I'm honest, I think I enjoy building/selling sticks more than I enjoy playing with them =P

@ThanosReXXX There's almost no chance this iteration of Smash doesn't get 10/10's from everyone. From what I've seen, likely deservedly so. I do fully agree with you though, unlockable characters is one of the main things that keeps me coming back to fighting games, so it is quite odd to list it as a con here.

@NEStalgia If only Arc systems would get the license for a Marvel vs game... I think I'll likely give this a shot on PC. I'd love to support Switch, but considering it is half price on PC and that's where my sticks are normally connected anyway, it just makes more sense. Hope this port does well though. Thanks for the feedback.

@NEStalgia as someone that loves fighting games (I have a few custom built sticks, Sega 2P8 & hitbox layouts) but absolutely sucks at them, what is your recommendation on this game? For me, I've pretty much only ever got into SF & MvC. SF I was actually decent at SFIV, MvC I was horrible at, I just loved the characters. Is this newb friendly? I don't mind it taking some time to learn systems, but with most fighting games, I feel like I need to sit down with practice mode for hours on end just to figure out basic combos, and I don't find that overly fun anymore.

I simultaneously behave in a manner that agrees and disagrees with the viewpoints of the article. On one hand, I acknowledge that I have less time to play video games now than I did as a kid. It would be wasteful for me to buy games (and consoles) that I know full well will not get played. Obviously, I think that type of behavior should be addressed, if you find yourself buying things and never playing them. Despite the plethora of amazing games on PS4 begging for my attention, I don't have time to play everything on my Switch or PC. For those reasons, I only own and play on Switch and PC, as well as my retro consoles. There's no shortage of great games on PS4, and I'd love to play Horizon, The Last of Us, God of War, etc... but if I don't have the time, why bother?

On the other hand, at this point in my life, my time is far more valuable than money. If I purchase a $30-$60 title and I'm not having fun, I don't have any problem putting it down and moving on. It sucks, and it was a waste of money, sure - but I'd much rather it be a waste of money than a waste of my time and money. To be fair, I rarely buy full priced games anymore, given humble bundle, steam sales, GoG sales, etc... When I do, it is typically known quality titles from Nintendo. I think that's another reason we see people clamoring for Metroid Prime 4, Super Smash Bros, Fire Emblem, etc... I know I will love them, and I know I will play them to death, and will have no problem purchasing them at full price.

@Heavyarms55 I'll disagree slightly in that I have played VR games that were certainly enhanced by simply being VR. I really enjoyed any cockpit base games, especially racing games with a wheel & pedals. That's probably the most immersive and one of the coolest experiences I've ever had with games. Even Lucky's Tale (A mediocre platformer) was incredibly neat due to the sense of space and being able to look around objects.

That said, I actually agree with your first post. Despite finding it to be incredibly immersive at times, given the right setup & game, I sold my Oculus Rift and my racing setup for a few reasons - the main one being I just don't have the time to play games while 100% shutoff to my wife and kids - I need to be able to easily hear/see them, and playing in VR completely eliminates that. I also just don't think it's technically ready yet for some people. I'm really sensitive to frame rate, and the screen door effect bothered me as well, so until we have more powerful PC's that can drive much higher resolution headsets, I'm out. There's not much in the way of compelling games (To me) outside of racing sims. I find the headset uncomfortable after about 30 minutes. That all added up to having a very expensive setup that I barely ever used, even though I enjoyed it when I did. I do think we'll see better iterations in the future, and maybe I'll return then, but for now I do agree that it is a bit over hyped and impractical for many people.

@DartBuzzer I agree the setup could use improving, but I don't agree that the Quest will solve all of my problems, personally. First, I love the idea of a smaller, lighter, more comfortable wireless headset. However, that also means you are tied to games designed specifically for it, which I am not a fan of. It would make more sense to me to have it tied to a platform (Like PC) that can be upgraded, play your existing library, etc... I understand what they are trying to do, it's just not for me I guess, though I do like the idea of being free from wires.

@geheimxy Tencent is the publisher, not developer. They also own a stake in a ridiculous number of companies. Them owning a portion of Riot games does not make another game produced by a completely different company remotely related, other than they happen to be in the same broad genre of games.

EDIT: My mistake, Timi Studio Group is a subsidiary of Tencent, so I was incorrect in saying Tencent was not the developer. Still, the other point stands - the two games are created by two completely separate development studios.

@NEStalgia I'm not saying it never makes sense. It makes a ton of sense for certain things - steaming media, large file, and pretty much any other service you know you are going to have sustained transfers. For the miniscule amounts of data (In general, ignoring NBA2k18) needed to upload cloud saves, I'm not sure I would resort to throttling everyone to a static, arbitrary limit. Setup your QoS policies correctly, and if bandwidth is available, let users upload at full speed.

EDIT: And @NEStalgia, Don't forget to nibble @rjejr 4 times while you're at, if you are so inclined.

@pinta_vodki I'm with you. Though, despite me saying this is a non-issue for 99% of all scenarios, it is still an odd thing to implement. Capping users to 8mbps doesn't relieve the strain on their servers/isp - it just stretches out the duration. Makes me wonder if they're more concerned with some sort of malicious users, DDoS attacks, etc... Regardless - doesn't bother me in the slightest, but it is curious.

@aiden0309 Which is exactly what I responded to. 100% cloud hosted games would have even less impact on your upload bandwidth, as your local machine will be uploading very limited amounts of data to the cloud. It will be 99% download bandwidth.

@aiden0309 That's not true - you don't need anywhere near 8mbps up for streaming. Cloud saves will still be near instantaneous for the vast majority of games. Most residential internet connections have quite low upload speeds when compared to download anyway. I.E., My home connection is 250 down/10 up, so very little in the way of throttling for me.

@retro_player_22 Not everything above applies to you, but this is really non-impacting for 99% of scenarios. This will have no impact on your online gaming performance.

@stevenw45 In the Any% category, which this run was completed in, yes. There are other categories for glitchless and 100% runs.

@Almighty-Koz First, it's quite easy to jump through certain enemies like that. I've done it myself after seeing SMB & SMB3 speedruns and thinking it was impossible. It's very possible, and it's not even all that difficult. At least, not for a single level =) Keeping it up for the entire run is obviously insane.

As for emulators, looking at his record, it clearly states it was played on original hardware. Regardless, there are very stringent rules for which emulators can be used. The runs are also examined for legitimacy before being accepted. Frame data is analyzed and input files are required to be submitted if using an emulator. So even if an emulator is used, there almost no change any sort of advantage is gained.

@Roarsome This site's not big enough for the both of us, imposter! =P Guess it's time to find a new avatar.

@NEStalgia Obviously people are making a bigger deal out of it than needs it needs to be, but I do think it looks silly now. All momentum is completely stopped and you just drop to the ground. Simply because it's stuck around for so long, I do wish they put the animation back to the way it was. That said, it doesn't really make much of a difference - I enjoyed my time with the demo and have had my physical copy pre-ordered for some time. Really looking forward to this release.

@GravyThief I'm somewhat with you. Like you, I prefer physical. I will only buy games I think I will enjoy, I won't buy just because it is limited. However, I'm not willing to jump through a ton of hoops or pay out the nose for special/limited editions. In the case of Yooka Laylee, I just placed my order for the standard version. A bit more expensive than I would have liked, but otherwise, it wasn't difficult to get that version. I also think Yooka Laylee is a really good game. It's reputation is tarnished in part by ridiculous amounts of pre-release hype, and since being completely overshadowed by Super Mario Odyssey - otherwise, I think it's still a solid 7-8/10 game.