I tried twice to play this game and each time I quickly lost interest. It felt like a single player RPG with the design of an MMORPG (not surprising given the development history of this game). The game was released a few months after Skyrim so it already had outdated design when it was released. It's not like this game sold extremely well when it first came out, so who is even going to be interested in a remaster of an eight year old game for $40+ not to mention a collector's edition for $110? Are they crazy?

killer_roach wrote on Jun 22, 2020, 20:43:
Missing one game in there - but if you thought Beyond was too weird of gameplay I'm pretty sure you'd about lose it with Omikron.

I didn't list Omikron because, from what I remember, it's pretty different from their later games. It would be at the bottom of the list anyway. Interesting world but the FPS gameplay was one of the worst I've ever played.

I would love to see a remaster of the original. Still my favorite game after all these years.

Glad to see Quantic Dream porting these games to PC. Hopefully this means their future games won't be PS exclusive.

Here's my ranking of their games:
1. Heavy Rain
2. Detroit
3. Fahrenheit
4. Beyond: Two Souls

Heavy Rain had a great story and was suspenseful and exciting. Detroit had a much deeper message than their other games and was very enjoyable. Fahrenheit started out strong but the last act of the story was really disappointing.
With Beyond the story and gameplay just felt too weird to me so I never finished it. With one character to play there also seemed to be less consequences to repeatedly failing quick-time events (no chance at an untimely death). I remember I purposely tried to fail every step of basic training and she still passed with no apparent consequence to the story.

Personally this is not what I wanted to see out of a new expansion. I wished they had added more depth to what they already had, not add an entirely new aspect to the game which will likely be even more shallow than the base game. They added SRVs to the game nearly five years ago and there's still very little you can actually do in an SRV and almost none of it is fun.

I play these types of games to pilot spaceships. I just don't care about being able to walk around as a character and I especially don't care about having first-person shooter gameplay bolted on. There's so many other games I could play if I wanted to play a FPS (and they will undoubtedly have better FPS gameplay). There are not, however, many games which I can pilot a spaceship.

I don't understand why game developers feel there is a need for first person shooter gameplay in spaceship games. I thought Cloud Imperium was foolish to spend such an incredible amount of time adding FPS gameplay when no one who Kickstarted the game even expected it to be a part of the game. Now Frontier Developments is following suit.

It's hard to believe that they are just starting this process now. Why did they not start this six months to a year ago? By the time they release anything worthwhile no one will care anymore because there won't be any players left.

I tried playing this a few months ago and matchmaking took forever and I had to play many of the missions solo which was not fun to do. There's so few new players that it's a chore to even get beyond the the first few missions.

Orogogus wrote on May 7, 2020, 16:15:

Desalus wrote on May 7, 2020, 15:42:
Even if they had no character appearance customization I wouldn't feel like I'm missing out on anything. I'd rather the developer's efforts be put into something else.

Maybe it's the same tool they use to generate NPCs.

That's a good point. They could have the functionality in place and just need a UI developer to make it pretty.

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on May 7, 2020, 12:15:

Interesting question. I was going to say "most people" customize a character, but I have no real data to back that up aside from anecdotal evidence. Personally, if the options exist, I make at least one character look SOMETHING like myself, but since those options usually don't exist, usually I just settle for a character that isn't the default, looks different enough from the default that we aren't all clones if it's a multiplayer game, and remove all tattoos/scars. Ive noticed every multiplayer game, every character is covered in tattoos/scars/facepaint/whatever. Also all tacti-cool gear in Division 2, etc. Less is more, but the more serious the game, the more likely I am to make a sillier looking character just to not look like everyone else dressed in gray/black/white armor.

Also, hey new buttons on Bluesnews, nice.

In MMORPGs, yes, having enough character customization is important so that my character doesn't look like every other character running around. Still, for those MMORPGs that have 100 different facial sliders, I'm never going to customize to that amount of granularity. Give me a good array of faces, skin color, hair, facial hair, hair color, and eye color, and that's basically all I care about.

In the past whenever I have really gotten into character appearance customization I can become way too obsessive over how they look. I remember in Oblivion spending far too much time changing my character's appearance, then I got them into the game and the lighting was different so they looked ugly. Then I would delete the character and start over again. It was so tiresome.

I honestly prefer that the developers give me an iconic character to play with because they usually put extra effort into making that character look good and then I can get straight to playing the game. I didn't mind not having any choice about what Geralt looked like in the Witcher games. I chose the default Commander Sheperd in Mass Effect. I chose the default Hawke in Dragon Age 2. I'm currently playing the Wolfenstein games and I never once wished I could change the appearance of B.J. Blazkowicz. In Cyberpunk 2077 in all likelihood I'll be playing as the iconic male character seen in the trailers and that is entirely fine with me. Even if they had no character appearance customization I wouldn't feel like I'm missing out on anything. I'd rather the developer's efforts be put into something else.

I'd like to know how much time the average person actually spends customizing the appearance of their characters in video games. For the games that have highly intricate appearance customization, how many players actually use it?

Personally, in single player games if the default character isn't ugly I don't even bother with character appearance customization. The extent of my character appearance customization in Cyberpunk 2077 will be clicking through the preset characters to see which one looks the best and then clicking the 'next' button to just get into the game.

The amount of time developers put into building intricate character customization just seems like a huge waste of time. I can't imagine that many players make use of 100 different sliders to adjust ever aspect of a character.

Xero wrote on Mar 25, 2020, 11:26:
All I want from Avalanche is a Mad Max 2.

I second that. I had a great time playing Mad Max and it was certainly underrated. Unfortunately sales probably under-performed because of the reviews, so I don't have much hope of seeing Mad Max 2, especially from Avalanche Studios.

"32 new Georgia State Troopers fired, 1 resigned after allegedly cheating on exams"

It's shocking that the entire class cheated. Not a single person thought that it wasn't right or not worth the risk? Makes me wonder what in the speed detection test is so difficult that it would cause an entire class of thirty-three people to cheat.

So if players don't have a Fallout 1st subscription they have no way to play the game without the risk of someone stealing items off their character? I didn't think this game could get any worse than it was in the past but it seems the devs outdid themselves again.

Bought two and I never use them. The controllers would have been great if they had squeezed in another analog stick because the track pad is a very poor replacement.

Dirwulf wrote on Nov 26, 2019, 12:58:

Kxmode wrote on Nov 26, 2019, 12:45:

Another quality game review by Parker The Grouch. /s

The funny part is he is still playing the game that he hates so much.

I think he likes complaining about games more than he likes playing them.

Cutter wrote on Nov 26, 2019, 14:01:
Lack of demand? Like that thing they were trying to force on everyone? What was it? Kinect?

Undoubtedly that has been recognized as a huge mistake that was made with the debut of the Xbox One and they aren't looking to repeat that again with a VR headset.

Why do these games continue to sell so well? People really seem to enjoy playing basically the same game with a fresh coat of paint year after year don't they?

CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 24, 2019, 13:57:

Rigs wrote on Oct 24, 2019, 13:33:
What a bunch of bullshit. There's all of exactly TWO things that the community wants and has wanted since the beginning...

Landing on Earth-like terrestrial planets and walking around on your ship while it's moving (and slightly less, walking around the stations that you dock to

Please speak for yourself. It is hardly "the community" that wants space legs. Many people, myself included, could not care less about walking around doing nothing. That's not what Elite has ever been about. Wrong game. Elite rightfully focuses on the space ship CMDR gameplay. There is A LOT (fucktons upon fucktons of potential) that they could and should add to the space game. "We" do not need another layer in the form of space legs that lacks content and just adds more timesink.

Yeah, I'm also of the opinion that I really don't care about space legs. I'd much more prefer additional content or making the current systems a lot more feature robust. The game was released nearly five years ago and we still have to rely on third party websites to find basic information that should be freely available in-game.

Unfortunately, if rumors are to be believed, space legs are exactly the area of focus for the next paid expansion. I don't really understand what it adds to the game other than one and done eye candy. They better have some substantial content and purpose to go with it.

..making games on the service more responsive than even those on PCs and consoles.

Who does this guy think we are? Idiots? Nobody is going to believe this claim unless the game starts playing itself.

Bill Borre wrote on Sep 27, 2019, 11:41:
I haven't played either game but from what I've read about Dark Souls I wouldn't pick it up. I don't hate Dark Souls. I'm sure many players enjoy that kind of thing I just don't care for games that are overly frustrating. I've thought about picking up Monster Hunter World though. I hadn't heard it was similar to Dark Souls. If you're saying it is then I guess that's another game I'll skip.

The games aren't that similar beyond having to strategically fight tough bosses. Monster Hunter is challenging but not aggravating like Dark Souls. If you're defeated in Monster Hunter you don't lose any progress and it usually takes a very short time to get back to fighting the monster. I felt that MH was definitely worth the purchase whereas I never had any fun playing the Dark Souls games.

I really wanted to finish this game but I couldn't stomach the grind needed to defeat some of the bosses.